REGULATIONS 


OF    THK 


f tbrn:ru  of  tlje  f  eberal-street  Sbtieti) 


IN    BOSTON. 


The  Library  is  open  to  the  use  of  all   the  Members  of 
the  Federal-street  Congregational  Society. 


ii. 
Books  are  delivered  from  the  Library  at  the  close  of 
tin-   morning  service  on  every   Sunday.      Books  must  be 
returned  at  the  same  time. 

in. 
Bach  person  may  take  two  volumes  at  a  time. 

IV. 

N.i  volume  can  be  taken  from  the  Library,  until  its 
title,  together  with  the  name  ami  residence  of  the  person 
on  whose  account  it  is  taken,  has  been  recorded  in  a  book 
kept  lor  th<-  purpose. 

v. 

Octavo  and  duodecimo  volumes  may  be  kept  four 
jreekd :  other  bunk-,  only  two  weeks. 


Tlii-  book^v.'i-  placed  in  the   Library. 


&  / 


J^fcx^e 


a 


EM ARKS 


On  certain  Passages  in 
The  Bifliop  of  Landaff's 


SOCIETY-SERMON, 


The  Validity  of  Presbyterian  Ordination 
asserted  and  maintained. 

A 

DISCOURSE 

Delivered  at  the 

Anniversary   Dudleian-Lecture, 

AT 

Harvard-College   in    Cambridge 
NEW-ENGLAND, 
May   12.   1762. 

With  an  APPENDIX, 
Giving  a  brief  historical  account  of  the 
epiftlesafcribed  to  Ignatius  ;  and  exhi- 
biting fome  of  the  many  reafons,  why 
they  ought  not  to  be  depended  on  as  his 
uncorrupted  works. 

By  CHARLES  CHAUxNCY,  D.  D. 

One  ofthePastorsof  the  First  Church  inBoston, 


■^■»»M1  S  ^'1  . 1-W  W  IMF?  P  IL  J    f-fT'<',H»      ».>  i 


BOSTON,  NEW-ENGLAND  : 

Printed   and  Sold    by  Richard  Draper,     in   New- 

bury-Street,   and  Thomas    Leverett   in 

cornhill.     i762. 


The  words  I  would  prefix  to  the 
following  difcourfe,  as  a  proper 
motto,  are  thofe  infpired  ones  of 

the  apoftle   Paul, 

» 

"  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
"  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy, 
cc  with  the  laying  on  the  hands  of 
"  the  prefbytery. 

i   Tim.    iv.    14. 


THE  honorable  judge  Dud  ley  "  ef- 
"  teem'd  the  method  of  ordination, 
"  as  pra&ifed  in  Scotland,  at  Gene- 
"  va,  among  the  diflenters  in  England,  and 
u  in  the  churches  in  this  country,  to  be 
"  fafe,  fcriptural  and  valid."  And  he  firm- 
ly believed,  "  that  the  great  head  of  the 
"  church,  by  his  blefled  fpirit,  had  own'd, 
"  fanflified  and  blell  the  admhiftration  of 
"  gofpel  ordinances  by  perfons  ordained  \ 
u  this  way  ;  and  chat  he  would  concinu 
*'  fo  to  do  to  the  end  of  the    world."     I 

A3  v 


i 


6       Ordination  by  Presbyters 

was  accordingly  his  intention,  that  the  dif- 
courie  at  this  lecture  Ihould  be  adapted  to 
the  purpole  of  "  explaining  and  maintain- 
ing "  this  kind  of  ordination.  Not  that 
he  queftioned  "  the  validity  of  what  is 
commonly  called  epifcopal  ordination,  as 
performed  in  the  church  of  England,"  or 
had  it  in  his  heart  to  encourage  the  faying 
any  thing  that  would  ini'inuate  as  tho'  God 
had  not  bled,  and  would  not  goon  to  blefs, 
the  miniftry  of  thofe  who  were  thus  or- 
dained. Had  none  of  the  friends  to  ecclefi- 
aftical  fuperiorities,  according  to  the  prefent 
epifcopal  form,  been  Jefs  wanting  in  candor 
and  charity  towards  thofe  who  differ  from 
them,  we  ihould  never  have  heard  of  this 
lecture.  It  took  rife,  in  the  honorable 
founder's  mind,  from  the  narrow  principles 
of  thofe  anathamatifmg  zealots,  who  would 
confine  falvation  to  their  own  church,  by 
confining  the  validity  of  gofpel  ordinances 
to  the  adrainiftratioil  of  them  by  perfons, 
upon  whom  the  hands  of  a  bifhop,  in  their 
fcnfe  of  the  word,  have  been  impoicd.  And 
he  wifely  ordered  the  preaching  of  it  in  this 
place,  that  our  fons,  who  are  lent  here, 
from  all  parts  of  the  land,  to  be  trained  up 
for  public  fervice,  might  be  under  advan- 
tage to  hear  and  know  the  reafons,  upon 
which  they  may,  with  all  good  conference, 
join  in   communion    With  thefe  churches, 

and 


Scriptural   and  valid,  7 

and  officiate  aspaftors  in  them,  fhould  they, 
when  fitted  for  it,  be  called  thereto  in  the 
providence  of  God. 

You  are,  by  this  time,  at  no  lofs  to  know 
the  defign  of  the  prefent  difcourfe  ;  that  it 
is  to  vindicate  the  New-England  churches 
in  their  method  of  ordination  by  preibyters: 
or,  in  other  words,  to  affert  and  maintain 
the  fafetyand  validity  of  what  is  commonly 
called  prefbyterian  ordination,  to  the  pur- 
pofes  of  the  gofpel  miniftry. 

Only,  before  I  come  to  the  argument 
upon  this  head,  it  may  not  be  amifs  to  men- 
tion a  few  things,  in  which  we  agree  with 
our  opponents. 

We  agree  with  them,  it  is  the  will  of 
Chrift  there  fhould  be  officers  in  his  church 
to  preach  the  word,  toadminifter  the  facra- 
ments,  to  exercife  difcipline,  and  to  com- 
mit thefe  powers  toother  faithful  men  ;  and 
that  this  will  of  his  extends  to  all  ages,  till 
time  (hall  be- no  more.  "  Lo,  I  am  with 
you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
Whether  it  be  his  will,  made  known  in  the 
new-teftament-revelation,  or  elfe-where, 
that  this  work  of  the  facred  miniftry  fhould 
be  divided,  and  differently  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  two  diftinft  orders  oi  men,    the 

A  4  one 


8       Ordination  by  Presbyters 

one   fuperior,  the  other  inferior,  we  fhall 
hear  afterwards. 

We  agree  with  them,  that  none  fhould 
take  upon  them  the  minifterial  office,  unlefs 
they  are  qualified  for  it  conformably  to  the 
apoftolic  directions  in  the  epiflles  to  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  ;  and,  if  they  are  thus  quali- 
fied, that  they  have  no  right  to  officiate  as 
paftors  in  the  church  of  Chrift,  till  they  are 
called  hereto.     "  No  man  taketh  this  ho- 
nor to  himfelf,  but  he  that  is  called  of  God. 
as  was  Aaron."     This  call,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  church  of  England,  includes  not  on- 
ly an  ability  given  by  God  for  the  work  of 
the  miniflry,  but  the  excitement  of  an  ac- 
tual readinefs  in  the  perfons   who  have  it 
freely  to  devote  themfelves  to  the  gofpel 
fervice.     We  go   farther,  and  add    hereto, 
the  voice  of  the  church.     And  herein   the_ 
advantage  lies  undeniably  on  our  fide,  whe- 
ther an  appeal  be  made  to  fcripture,  or  pri- 
mitive antiquity.    Even  after  the  diftintfion 
between  bifhops  and  prefbyters  took  place, 
it  was  by  the   fuffrage  of  the  people   that 
this  or  that  perfon  was  felefled  for  this  or 
the  other  cure.     In    this  way,    Alexander 
was  chofen  bifhop  of  Jerufalem  f  ;  in  the 
fame  way  Fabianus  was  advanced    to   the 
fee  of  Rome,  upon  the  death  of  Antcrus  *, 

as 

f  Eufeb.  Lib.  6.  c.  u.         *  Eufeb.  Lib.  6.  c.  28. 


Scriptural  and  valid.  g 

tls  was  alfo  his  fucceffor  Cornelius  f  ;  and 
it  was  by  the  fame  favor  and  fuffrage  of  the 
people,  "  plebis  favore,  "  §  "  populi  fufFra- 
gio,"  *  that  Cyprian  was  elected  bifhop  of 
Carthage.* —  But  inftead  of  mifpending  the 
time  to  prove  that  which  is  fo  weli  known 
to  all,  in  any  meafure  acquainted  with  an- 
tiquity, it  may  rather  be  lamented,  that 
the  churches  of  Chrift  havefo  generally  had 
wrefted  from  them,  in  one  way  or  another, 
this  invaluable  privilege.  The  people,  con- 
ftituting  the  epifcopal  church  at  home, 
fcarce  know  what  it  is  to  have  pallors  of 
their  own  chufing.  And  the  eale  is  much 
the  fame  with  molt  of  the  proteftant  chur- 
ches in  Europe.  The  right  of  nomination 
is  almoft  univerfally  lodged,  not  with  the 
people,  but  with  princes  or  patrons,  either 
clerical  or  fecular,  in  confequence  whereof 
their  miniiters  are  not  of  their  own  chufing, 
but  fuch  as  others  chufe  for  them.  The 
New-England  churches,  blefled  be  God, 
poflefs  and  exercife  the  right  of  electing 
their  paltors  in  the  mod  ample  manner  of 
any  in  the  whole  chriftian  world.  May 
they  ever  "  ftand  fa  ft  in  this  liberty  "  where- 
with he  who  is "  head  over  all  things,"  has 
"  made  them  free  "  !  And  may  their  glory, 
in  this  refpedt,  be  never  taken  from  them  ! 

We 

t  Cyprian.  Epif.  67.     §  Pontius  in  vita  Cypriani. 
*  Cyprian.  Epif.  55.  40. 


io     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

We  agree  with  them,  that,  befides  the 
call  to,  their  mult  be  an  inveftiture  in,  the 
miniiterial  office,  before  perfons  may,  in  or- 
dinary cafes,  regularly  undertake  to  do  the 
work  that  is  proper  to  it  :  And  we  are  fur- 
ther agreed,  that  ordination,  meaning  here- 
by impofition  of  hands  with  folemn  prayer, 
is  the  fcripture-mode  of  this  inveftiture. 
By  the  ufe  of  this  rite,  with  prayer,  Paul 
and  Barnabas  were  feparated  to  the  work  to 
which  God  had  called  them.  So  was  Ti- 
mothy ;  and  fo  were  thofe  feperatedby  him 
to  the  like  work.  And  this  has  been  the 
rite  of  minifterial  inveftiture  in  ufe  in  the 
church  all  along  from  the  beginning  to  this 
day. 

Only,  let  it  be  remembered  here,  if, 
by  ordination,  our  opponents  fuppofe  any 
moral  gift,  or  fpiritual  power,  inherent 
in  the  ordainers,  is  conveyed  from  them  to 
the  perfons  upon  whom  they  lay  their  hands, 
we  beg  leave  to  diflent  from  them  in  this  : 
Apprehending,  and,  as  we  judge,  upon 
good  grounds,  that  the  authority  of  goipel 
minifters  comes  folely  from  Chrift  ;  while 
the  ordainers  are  nothing  more  than  his  fer- 
vants  in  inflating  the  perfons  they  ordain  in 
the  regular  exercile  of  this  authority.  As 
in  the  cafe  of  the  mayor  of  a  city,  the  kings 
charter  of  incorporation  grants  the  power; 

the 


Scriptural  and  valid,         ii 

the  burgeffes  and  recorder  only  indigitate 
the  proper  recipient  of  it,  and  put  him  legally 
into  the  execution  of  his  office.  So  here, 
Chrift,  in  the  gofpel-charter,  gives  the 
power  to  aft  as  his  minifters ;  it  only  be- 
longs to  the  ordainers  to  point  out  the  per- 
fons  with  whom  this  power  is  intruded, 
and  regularly  admit  them  to  the  exercife  of 
it.  The  ordainers  are  to  be  confidered,  not 
as  granting  this  power,  but  as  afting  mi~ 
nifterially  in  introducing  capable  perfons, 
according  to  gofpel-order,  into  the  poffef- 
fion  and  ufe  of  it ;  the  power  itfelf  having 
already  been  granted  by  Chrift,  the  alone 
fountain  of  all  power  in  the  church,  which 
is  properly  jure  divino. 

It  follows  from  hence,  as  we  judge,  very 
obvioufly  and  juftly,  that  thofe  who  are  r& 
gularly  veiled  with  the  minifterial  office 
may  fairly  claim,  and  warrantably  exercife, 
all  the  power  that  belongs  to  it,  be  the 
words  of  their  inveftiture,  or  the  intention 
of  their  ordainers,  what  they  will.  For  as 
their  office  is  from  Chrift  his  inftituting  will, 
not  the  intention  or  words  of  their  ordain- 
ers, mult  be  the  true  and  only  meafure  of 
their  power. 

/     In  fine,  we  agree  with  our  opponents, 
that  the  inveftiture  by  ordination  muft  be 

the 


12     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

the  aft  of  thofe,  and  only  thofe,  who  are 
authorifed  to  perform  it.  It  is  not  left,  in 
thefacred  fcriptures,  a  work  common  to  all, 
and  that  may  be  done  by  any  ;  but  is  the 
appropriate  truft  offome,  in  diftin&ionfrom 
others.  The  brethren  may  not  impofe 
hands  in  confecrations  to  the  gofpel-mini- 
ftry.  Nothing  occurs  in  the  new-teftament 
that  can  be  conftrued  to  countenance  fuch 
a  practice.  The  builnefs  belongs  to  thofe 
only  who  are  officers  in  the  church  of  Chrift  ; 
tho'  not  to  thefe  indifcriminately.  For  dea- 
cons, no  more  than  mere  brethren,  may 
be  allowed  to  lay  on  hands  in  ordination. 
The  gofpel  officers  who  may  do  this  are 
only  thofe,  who  are  authorifed  hereto  ;  that 
is  to  fay,  they  are  only  thofe  whofe  office 
contains  in  it  this,  among  other  minifterial 
powers. 

But  who  are  thefe  officers  ?  This  is 
the  grand  queftion  :  And  the  true  anfwer 
to  it  will  be  decifive  in  the  prefent  difpute. 


Our  opponents  fay,  bifhops,  confidered 
as  an  order  of  men  diftindt  from,  and  fu- 
perior  to,  prefbyters,  are  the  only  church- 
officers,  who  are  veiled  with  a  right  to 
ordain. 

We 


Scriptural  and  valid*         13 

We  fay,  on  the  contrary,  the  fcripture 
knows  of  no  fuch  order  of  officers  in  the 
church  ;  and  that  gofpei-prefbyters,  or  fuch 
minilters  of  Chrift  as  are  allowed  to  have  a 
right  to  preach  the  word,  and  adminifler 
the  facraments,  are  true  fcripture  bilhops, 
and  cloathed  with  authority  to  do  every 
thing  that  is  to  be  done  in  the  bufinefs  of 
ordination. 

And  this  is  the  point  I  am  to  make  evi- 
dent to  you.  In  order  whereto  I  might 
call  your  attention  to  thofe  various  argu- 
ments which  have  commonly  been  made 
life  of  upon  like  occafions  with  this ;  but, 
as  I  am  confined  within  too  narrow  limits 
to  do  them  proper  juftice,  I  fhall  wholly 
pafs  them  over,  though  they  carry  in  them, 
as  I  imagine,  conclusive  force,  that  I  may 
leave  room  to  enlarge  on  the  following 
considerations,  namely, 

That  the  apoftles  of  Chrift,  in  fettling 
the  churches,  conftituted  (  befides  the  order 
of  deacons  )  no  more  than  one  order  of 
Handing  pallors  ;  That  thefe  pallors,  in 
their  day,  were  called  fometimes  bifhops, 
fometimes  prefbyters,  and  promifcuoully 
pointed  out  by  either  of  thefe  names  \  and 
finally,  that  thefe  bifhops  or  prefbyters  were 
endowed  with  all  the  ordinary  powers  that 

were 


14     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

were  to  be  exercifed  in  the  church  of  Chrift, 
particularly  with  that  of  ordination. 

These  premifes  will,  if  fet  in  a  juft 
point  of  light,  unavoidably  juftify  us  in 
concluding,  that  prefbyterian  ordination, 
or,  as  it  might  with  equal  propriety  be 
called,  ordination  by  fcripture-bifhops,  is 
fafe  and  valid. 

It  fcarce  needs  to  be  previoufly  remarked 
here,  that  the  apoftles,  confidered  as  fuch, 
were  immediately  fent  by  God,  and  this 
under  the  infallible  guidance  of  infpiration, 
to  preach  the  gofpel  to  Gentiles  as  well  as 
Jews,  to  gather  churches  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  and  to  appoint  the  officers,  both 
for  inftrudion  and  government,  which 
were  to  be  perpetuated  in  them  for  their 
edification  in  faith  and  holinefs,  till  the  time 
of  the  appearing  of  our  Saviour  to  put  an 
end  to  the  prefent  gofpel-ceconomy.  This 
being  taken  for  granted,  I  proceed  to  fay, 

That  the  apoftles,  in  virtue  of  this 
plenitude  of  power,  which  they  received 
immediately  from  Chrift,  conftituted  no 
more  (  beiides  the  order  of  deacons,  with 
which  we  have  nothing  to  do  at  prefent  ) 
than  one  order  of  (land in q-  officers  in  the 
gefpel-church.     It  is  not  my  bufincfs,  in 


this 


Scriptural  and  valid. 


*5 


this  part  of  the  difcourfe,  to  fay  who  thefe- 
officers  are  :  This  will  be  done  afterwards. 
At  prefent  I  am  concerned  only  with  the, 
fact  itfelf  ;  the  proof  of  which  is  to  be 
fetched  from  the  facred  writings*  And  the 
proof  from  hence  is  as  full  as  could  reafon- 
ably  be  defired. 

Neither  Chrift  nor  his  apoftles  have 
any  where  given  inftructions,  defcriptive  of 
the  perfons  fit  for  the  work  of  the  miniftry, 
that  are  adapted  to  the  fuppofition  of  a  dif- 
ference of  order  in  the  paftoral  office.  Had 
there  been  fuch  a  difference,  different  qua- 
lifications would  have  been  requifite  to  the 
fuitabk  difcharge  of  the  different  trufls  ari- 
fing  therefrom  ;  and  it  might  juftly  have 
been  expelled,  that  the  fcriptures  would 
have  diftinguifhed  between  the  qualificati- 
ons refpectively  proper  for  the  manage- 
ment of  each  of  thefe  trufts..  But 
they  no  where  thus  diftinguifh.  They 
no  wrhere  intimate,  that  fuch  different 
endowments  w7ere  neceffary.  Far  from 
this,  they  have  fpecified  the  qualifications 
of  one  order  of  paftors  only  ;  as  may  be 
feen  at  large  in  the  epiflles  to  Timothy  and 
Titus.  And  what  is  llrange,  they  have 
been  very  particular  in  difcribing  the  qua- 
lifications of  this  one  order,  while  they  are 
totally  filent  with  refpect  to  the  other  that 

is 


16     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

is  pleaded  for,  tho*  that  other  is  faid  to  be 
by  much  the  mofl  honorable  and  important 
of  the  two. 

In  like  manner,  no  rules  are  any  where 
laid  down  for  the  guidance  of  ordainers  in 
veiling  ordinary  minifters  with  different 
degrees  of  honor  and  power.  They  are  no 
where  told  of  the  inftitutionof  two  diftin6l 
orders  of  ftanding  paftors  ;  they  are  no 
where  inftru&ed  to  exercife  their  ordaining 
right  conformably  to  this  diftin&ion,  by 
placingfome  in  an  higher,  others  in  a  lower 
rank  in  the  church.  The  facred  writings 
of  the  apoftles  fay  nothing  to  fuch  a  pur- 
pofe  as  this.  On  the  contrary,  they  prefent 
to  our  view  a  very  full  and  explicit  directo- 
ry for  the  ordination  of  one  order  only  of 
ftanding  paftors.  This  we  have  in  the 
Pauline  inftruftion,  referring  to  the  fettle- 
xnent  of  the  churches  in  Crete.  The  great 
apoftle  of  the  Gentiles  gives  it  in  charge  to 
Titus,  whom  he  left  in  this  ifland  with  a 
direct  view  "  to  fet  in  order  the  things  that 
were  wanting,"  to  ordain  fixed  paftors  in 
the  feveral  churches  there.  But  what  paf- 
tors were  they  ?  Of  a  different  rank,  fome 
fuperior,  others  inferior  ?  Not  a  word 
leading  to  fuch  a  tho't  is  to  be  found  thro'- 
out  his  whole  epiltle.  No  ;  but  the  paftors 
he  dir^fts  fhould  be  ordained  were  precifely 

of 


Scriptural  and  valid.         17 

of  the  fame  rank  or  degree  :  Nor  did  Titus 
ordain  any  other.  He  could  not  indeed 
have  done  it,  unlefs  he  had  ailed  counter 
to  the  direction  he  had  received  from  the 
infpired  Paul. 

The  plea  here  is,  Titus  was  himfelf,  at 
this  time,  the  fole  bifhop  of  Crete,  and  as 
fuch  entrnfted  with  the  power  of  ordaining 
inferior  paftors.  But  this  is  a  plea  that 
can't  be  fupported  upon  juft  and  folid  reafons ; 
as  we  fhall  have  occaiion,  by  and  by,  to 
make  plain  to  you.  In  the  mean  time,  we 
go  on  and  fay  further, 

That,  in  the  churches  fettled  in  apof- 
tolic  times,  no  ordinary  gofpel-minifters  are 
to  be  found  but  of  one  order  only.  No  o- 
ther  were  in  Lyftra,  Iconium  and  Anti- 
och.  The  apoftle  Paul,  with  Barnabas, 
conftituted  fuch  paftors  in  all  the  churches 
in  thefe  places,  but  no  other.  Tis  faid,  * 
"  they  ordained  elders,"  officers  of  one  and 
the  fame  rank,  "  in  every  city."    Should  the 

WOrUS,  ^flpsTovjjravTg?    £2    ccvtok;  TTfiirfivTSfQi:?    kcct    iKK>.r,(rt(X,v9 

be  rendered,  not,  *  when  they  had  ordain- 
ed them  elders  in  every  city"  ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Hammond's  f  mind,  "  when  they 
had  ordain'd  them  elders  church  by 
church"  ;  meaning,  that  a  plurality  of  elders 
was  conftituted  in  thefe  churches  collectively 

B  taken, 

*  Atfs,  xiV.  23.     f     Vid.  Hammond  in  loc. 


18     Ordinatiom  by  Presbyters 

taken,  not  that  there  was  this  plurality 
in  each  individual  church  :  I  fay,  fhould 
this  be  allowed  to  be  the  fenfe  of  the  words, 
it  would  notwithftanding  remain  the  truth 
of  fadl,  that  one  order  of  officers  only  was 
here  fpoken  of;  which  is  all  I  am  at  pre- 
fent  proving  from  this  text.  Tho'  I  fee  not 
but  a  plurality  of  elders  might  be  ordained 
"  from  church  to  church,"  in  one  church 
after  another,  and  fo  in  every  church,  as 
well  as  a  lingle  one  in  each  church.  And 
this  is  undoubtedly  the  true  fenfe  of  the 
place,  as  it  beft  accords  with  what  was  ac- 
tually done  in  other  churches. 

At  Ephefus,  as  in  the  place  we  have 
juft  been  conlidering,  no  paftors  had  been 
fettled  but  of  equal  degree.  No  other  are 
mentioned  by  the  apoftle  Paul,  when  he 
lent  from  Miletus  to  Ephefus  to  call  to  him 
the  paftors  of  that  church.  He  fpeaksof 
them  in  the  ftile  of  elders,  J  evidently  de- 
scribing them  as  officers  of  one  and  the 
fame  rank.  Had  there  been  a  biihop  in 
this  church,  a  fingle  perfon  of  a  fuperior  or- 
der, to  whom  thefe  elders  were  in  fubjefli- 
on,  'tis  ftrangehc  did  not  fend  for  him  like- 
wife.  Or  if,  at  this  time,  he  had  been  fo 
far  diftant  from  his  cure  as  not  to  be  with- 
in call,  it  is  equally  ftrange  he  fhould  fay 
nothing  relative  to  him  ;  efpecially,  as  he 

was 

t  Ads,    20.   17. 


!  Scriptural   and  valid.        19 

was  now  to  take  his  final  leave  of  this 
church,  §  "  knowing  that  they  fhould  fee 
his  face  no  more."  This,  if  ever,  was  a  fit 
feafon  to  mind  them  of  their  duty  to  their 
principal  paftor.  And  it  might  the  rather 
have  been  expefted  now,  as  he  fpeaks  of  it 
as  a  thing  known  tp  him,  "  that  after  his 
departure,  grievous  wolves  would  enter  in 
among  them,  not  fparing  the  flock."  * 
Who  fo  proper  to  have  received  inftru&ions, 
in  this  cafe,  as  the  chief  fhepherd  ?  He  tells 
them  alfo,  "  that  of  their  'own  felves  men 
fhould  arife,  fpeaking  perverfe  things 
to  draw  away  difciples  after  them."  J  And 
who  fo  fui table  to  be  charged  with  the  care 
of  withftanding  thefe  men  as  the  bifhop  ? 
And  yet,  the  whole  care  of  this  church, 
now  the  apoftle  was  going  from  them  to 
return  no  more,  he  devolves  on  the  elders  ; 
and  this,  tho'  he  knew  they  would  be  ex- 
pofed  to  hazards,  both  from  within  them- 
felves,  and  from  abroad.  This  conduct  is 
fo  unlike  to  the  manner  of  after  times, 
when  bifhops  were  advanced  to  fuperior dig- 
nity and  power,  that  it  muft  be  fuppofed, 
either  that  the  church  of  Ephefus  had  no 
fuch  bifhop,  or  that  the  apoftle  was  ftrangc- 
ly  forgetful  of  him.  Ignatius,  a  primitive 
father,  who  lived  in  this  fame  century,  if 
his  epillles  are  genuine,  as  they  are  faid  to 

B  2  be 

H  AGs  xx.  Vcr.  38.     *  Ver.  29.     %  Vcr.  30. 


20     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

be  by  our  opponents,  did  not  treat  the  bi* 
fhop  of  this,  or  any  other  of  the  churches 
he  wrote  to,  with  fuch  negle£h  He  rather 
efteemed  them  officers  fo  highly  important 
as  to  make  obedience  to  them  an  article 
worthy  of  his  inculcation  repeated  to  difguft. 
If  the  apoftle  Paul  had  been  of  the  like  fpi* 
rit,  he  could  not  have  omitted  mentioning 
the  bifhop  of  Ephefus,  if  there  had  been  one 
in  the  church  there,   in  his  day. 

At  Philippi  likewife  there  were  no  fixt 
paftors  but  of  one  order.  Very  obfervable 
to  this  purpofe  is  the  infeription  of  the  epiftle 
to  the  church  there.  "  To  all  the  faints  in 
Chrifl  Jefus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with 
the  biihops  and  deacons."  f  Befides  the 
deacons,  no  gofpel  paftors  but  of  one  order 
are  here  taken  notice  of.  And  the  fameii- 
lence  runs  thro'  the  epiftle  itfelf.  Thefe 
paftors/tis  true,  are  called  bifhops;  but  they 
were  biihops  of  the  fame  clafs  with  the  el- 
ders at  Lyftra,  Iconium,  Antioch  and  E- 
phefus.  To  be  fure,  they  were  not  bifhops 
in  the  fenfe  of  the  church  of  England  ;  and 
for  this  very  good  reafon,  becaufe  there 
was  a  plurality  of  them  in  this  church  at 
the  fame  time ;  which  flatly  contradi&s 
that  eflential  article  in  theepifcopalfcheme, 
"  one  church  one  bifhop. " 

.No 

t  Philip.  I.  i. 


Scriptural  and  valid.         21 

No  pains  have  been  wanting  to  evade 
this  difficulty.  Some,  in  order  to  it,  have 
adopted  the  fenfe,  the  counterfeit  Ambrofe, 
but  the  true  Hilary,  would  put  upon  the 
infcription,  and  read  it  thus,  "  Paul  and 
Timothy,  with  the  bifhops  and  deacons,  to 
the  faints  at  Philippic  Should  this  con- 
ftrudion  be  allowed  to  be  juft,  it  would 
not  folve  the  difficulty.  For  it  would  frill 
remain  true,  that  there  was  a  plurality  of 
bifhops  in  this  church,  unlefs  it  fhould  be 
faid,  that  thefe  were  the  bifhops,  not  of  the 
church  of  Philippi,  but  of  other  churches 
happening  to  be  there  at  this  time  ;  which 
is  a  meer  random-conjedure,  arbitrarily 
made  without  the  lead  proof.  But  the  con- 
ftruction  itfelf  is  forc'd,  and  incapable  of 
being  juftifled.  Should  the  infcriptions 
prefixt  to  the  two  epiftles  to  the  Corinthians 
be  thus  read  and  interpreted,  no  epifcopa^ 
rian,  however  zealous,  would  venture  to  fay, 
we  fhould  have  the  true  fenfe.  And  why 
any  fhould  pretend,  that  this  is  the  fenfe  of 
the  infcription  in  difpute,  no  imaginable 
reafon  can  be  affign'd,  fetting  afide  that  of 
Serving  an  hypothecs  ;  as  the  mode  of  dic- 
tion is  precifely  the  fame  in  all  thefe  infcrip- 
tions. Befides,  as  fome  of  the  beft  critics 
have  obferved,  if  the  apoflle  had  intended 
to  have  taken  in  the  bifhops  and  deacons 
with  him  in  faluting  this  church,  he  would 

not 


22     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

llOt  hQ.Ve  WrOte,  nauAt?  x.Zcl  TipoSeeS  uyiei*;  rei$  ovcri; 
sv    QiXixxoiCf     <rw    i7riTKo7eoic,     scat    hetx-ovsis,  ,  faV       he 

would  not  have  wrote  thus,  but    h«9a?i  *** 

Ti/AoQioc,     x.u.1   oi   <rw   lfJUO'.%     ZKKTKazoi     xtc t   oimkovoi,     kyio^   rat? 

cV<nv  &  <DiA^T«i?.  This  was  his  mode  of  expref- 
fion,  when  the  brethren  were  co-partners 
with  him  in  writing  to  the  churches  of 
Galatia.     The  form  of  words  is,  *  n*v\*  **< 

This  fame  form  of  expreffion  is  ufed  like- 
wife  by  Polycarp,  who  had  converfed  with 
thofe  who  had  feen  our  Lord,  in  his  epiftle 
to  the  Philippian  church,  f  fl**HNr-«  **1  y  «£*» 
*vt»  TfirfivTspa  to  the  church  of  God  that  fo- 
journeth  with  the  Philippians.- — But  this  is 
too  uncouth  a  fenfe  to  require  any  thing 
more  to  be  faid  in  confutation  of  it. 

The  learned  Dr.  Hammond,  to  avoid 
the  fuppofition  of  more  bifhops  than  one  in 
this  church,  makes  Philippi  a  metropolitan 
city,  and  the  bifhops  of  it,  not  the  bifhops 
of  that  fingle  city  only,  but  of  the  cities 
under  that  metropolis.  §  In  anfwer  where- 
to, Dr.  Whitby  afTures  us,  J  that  Philippi 
was  not,  at  this  time,  a  metropolitan  city, 
but  under  the  metropolis  of  ThefTalonica, 
which  was  the  metropolis  of  all  Mace- 
donia.    And,  as  to  its  being  a  metropolitan 

chureh, 

*  Gal.    I.  i.  3.     f    Infcription    to    Polycarp's  epiftle, 
§    Hammond's  note  on  Philip.  I,   1. 
%  His  note  on  Phillip.  I.  1. 


Scriptural  and  valid.         23 

church,  the  learned  bifhop  Stillingfleet  has 
abundantly  prov'd,  11  that  there  are  no  tra- 
ces of  it  within  the  firft  fix  centuries.  But 
it  would  be  needlefs  to  enlarge  here.  The 
irreconcileablenefs  of  this  notion  with  the 
Hate  of  things  in  apoftolic  times  is  fo  appa- 
rent, that  the  bare  mentioning  of  it  is  enough 
to  refute  it.  Dr.  Maurice,  tho'  a  ftrenuous 
advocate  for  diocefan  epifcopacy,  in  oppo- 
fition  to  Mr.  Clarkfon,  fpeaks  of  this  learn- 
ed author,  *  as  "  alone  "  in  this  folution  of 
the  difficulty,  and  declines  the  defence  of  it; 
At  the  fame  time,  profeffing  "  that  he  could 
never  find  fufficient  reafon  to  believe  thefe 
bifhops  any  other  than  prefbyters,  as  the 
generality  of  the  fathers,  and  of  the  church 
of  England,  have  done."  This  is  fairly 
and  freely  faid. 

I  shall  only  add  here,  the  apoftle  is 
as  forgetful  of  the  bifhop  of  this  church,  as 
he  was  of  the  bifhop  ofEphefus;  for  he 
takes  no  notice  of  any  fingle  paflor  fuperior 
in  rank  to  the  other  paftors.  And  the  fame 
filence  is  obfervable  in  Polycarp's  epiftle  to 
this  church  a  few  years  after.  Will  any 
pretend,  that  non-relidency  was  a  common 
cuftom  in  thofe  primitive  times  ?  It  is  far 
more  likely  there  were  no  fuch  fuperi- 
or paftors,  than  that  they  fhould  be  thus 

abfent 

H   Irenicum  page  359   &c. 

*  "  Defence  of  diocefan  epifcopacy, "  page  27. 


24     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

abfent  from  theircures.  And  yet,  this  muft 
have  been  the  cafe,  or  it  can't  eafily  be  ac- 
counted for,  that  no  mention  is  made  of 
them ;  efpecially  when  inferior  paftors  are 
applied  to,  and  even  the  deacons  are  not 
negle&ed. 

There  is  yet  further  evidence,  that 
paftors  of  one  order  cmly  were  fettled  in 
the  churches,  in  the  firft  times  of  the  gofp'el, 
from  the  apoftle  Peter's  firft  epiftle,  which 
he  directs  to  the  chriftians  *  "  fcattered 
throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia; 
Afia,  and  Bythirria."  Had  this  apoftle 
been  acquainted  with  any  diftin<5tion  of 
order  between  bifhops  and  other  paftors, 
he  would  undoubtedly  have  taken  fome 
notice  of  it  in  an  epiftle  infcribed  to  chrif- 
tains  in  fo  many  parts  of  the  world.  But, 
inftead  of  this,  he  mentions  only  fuch  paf- 
tors as  were  of  equal  rank ;  and  thefe,  while 
iilent  about  others,  he  is  exprefs  in  urging 
to  the  faithful  difcharge  of  their  duty  as 
officers  in  the  church  of  Chrift.  "  The  el- 
ders," fays  he,  f  u  which  are  among  you, 
I  exhort,  feed  the  flock  of  God." 

And,  from  that  apoftolic  injunction,  | 
"  Is  any  fick  among  you  ?  Let  him  call  for 
the  elders  of  the  church,  and  let  them  pray 
over  them"  :  I  fay,  from  this  apoftolic  rule,  it 

fhould 

*  i.  Peter  I.  i.     |  i.  ret.  y.   i.  2.  J  James  v.  14. 


Scriptural  and  valid.  1      25 

fhouldfeem,  that  the  then  known  ordinary 
pallors  of  the  church  were  only  elders. 
Why  elfe  are  they  particularly  named,  and 
chriftians  inllru6led  to  apply  to  them  to  af- 
flll  them  with  their  prayers  ?  Had  there 
been,  in  thofe  days,  another  and  fuperior 
order  of  pallors,  it  cannot  eafily  be  fuppo- 
fed,  they  fhould  have  been  wholly  over- 
looked.— But  I  may  not  enlarge. 

It  is  fufficiently  evident,  I  would  hope, 
from  what  has  been  offered,  that  the  apof- 
tles  of  our  Lord  conflituted  no  more  than 
one  order  of  (landing  pallors  in  the  gofpel- 
church.  And  fo  the  way  is  prepared  to 
fhow, 

In  the  next  place,  that  the  names,  bifhop 
and  prefbyter,  were,  in  apoftblic  times, 
reciprocal  terms,  and  accordingly  ufed  as 
fuch  to  point  out  this  conflituted  order  of 
pallors.  The  texts  to  this  purpofe  are  full 
and  flrong.  Thus,  the  elders,  T^^np^ 
whom  the  apoillePaul  called  to  him  from 
Ephefus,  are  applied  to  in  the  llile  of 
overfeers,  st^xo^.  Having  fent  for  them 
under  the  former  name,  he  exhorts  them 
under  the  latter.  So  we  read,  §"  He  fent 
toEphefus,  and  called  the  elders,  ^ic^j-:^v:, 
of  the  church  ;  and  when  they  were  come 
to  him,    he  faid  unto  them  ■ —   Take  heed 

C    i  10 

§  Afts  xx.   17,  28. 


26     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

to  the  flock  over  which  the  holy  Ghoil  hath 
made  you  overfeers, "  tMKovovt.  The  fame 
perfons,  who  are  ftiled  prefbyters  in  one 
part  of  the  fame  continued  lentence,  are  in 
the  other  called  bifhops  ;  and  this,  while 
fpoken  of  in  their  proper  chara&er  as  offi- 
cers of  the  church.  In  like  manner,  the  a- 
ptfftle  Peter  promifcuoufly  ufes  thefe  names, 
applying  them  to  the  fame  paftors.*  "  The 
elders  (vptafivrtfns)  that  are  among  you,  I 
exhort — feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the 
overfight  thereof,  "  wf#**iw*«  ;  a6ting  the 
part,  exer&fing  the  office,  of  bilhops  in  it. 
The  fame  promifcuous  ufe  is  made  of  thefe 
names  by  the  apoftle  Paul,  in  his  epiftle  to 
Titus :  For,  having  faid  fome  things  de- 
fcriptive  of  the  qualifications  of  thofe  he 
would  have  ordained  elders,  f  *s&0vrepwu 
he  gives  this  as  the  reafon  of  what  he  had 
offered,  £  "  a  bifhop,  mwhwt<&  mud  be 
blamelefs  — .  "  There  would  be  no  con- 
nection, no  force,  in  this  reafoning,  unlefs 
he  meant  by  the  names  elders  and  bifhops, 
*p<r faryoi  and  miie«nt9  precifely  the  fame 
church-officers. 

It  may  not  be  amifs  to  obferve  here, 
for  the  lake  of  thofe  who  are  fo  apt,  in  this 
difpute,  to  recur  to  antiquity,  that  both  the 
greek  and  latin  fathers,    if  we  mav  believe 

Dr. 

*  i  Pet.  7.   i,  2,      |Tit.  »•  5>6«        t  Vcr'  "- 


Scriptural    and   valid.  27 

Dr.Whitby,  *  an  eprfcoparian  writer,  "  do 
with  one  confent  declare,  that  bifhops  were 
called  prefbyters,  and  prefbyters  bifhops, 
in  apoftolic  times,  the  names  then  being 
common.  So  Chryfoftom,  Thodoret, 
Oecumenius  and  Theophyla6t,  among  the 
Greeks  ;  and,  among  the  Latins,  Jerom, 
Pfeud-Ambroiius,  Pelagius,and  Primafius.  ■' 

And  if  the  names  were  then  common, 
and,  as  we  have  proved,  promifcuoufly 
ufed  to  point  out  the  fame  church-officers, 
it  is  obvious,  and  vet  juft  to  conclude,  that 
thefe  are  the  officers  always  intended, 
whether  thev  are  called  bifhops  or  pref- 
byters. And  upon  the  truth  of  this  con- 
dition, we  may  warrantably  affirm,  that 
the  bifhops,  whole  qualifications  are  de- 
scribed in  the  epiftlc  to  Timothy,  are  pre- 
cifely  the  fame  with  the  elders  Titus  was 
directed  to  ordain  in  Crete  ;  as  alfo,  that 
the  bifhops  of  the  church  at  Philippi 
were  the  fame  with  the  elders  fpoken  of  in 
other  churches,  and,  e  contra,  the  elders  in 
other  churches  the  fame  with  thefe  bifhops. 
And  in  this  view  of  the  fcripture-language 
a  perfect  harmony  runs  thro'  the  whole 
new-teftament  upon  this  bead  of  ordinary 
paftors. 

C  2  I 

*  Note  on  Philip,  i.   i. 


28     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

I  shall  finifh  this  part  of  the  difcourfe 
with  the  following  remark,  worthy  of 
fpecial  notice,  namely,  that  in  all  the  a- 
bove  fcripture-pafTages,  the  argument,  in 
proof  that  biihops  and  prefbyters  are  one 
and  the  fame  order  of  paftors,  is  not  ground- 
ed meerly  on  the  promifcuous  fufe  of  thefe 
names,  but  their  being  fo  ufed  as'to  point 
out  the  work,  or  defcr'ibe  the  qualifications, 
that  are  proper  to  one  and  the  fame  office. 
Perhaps,  the  argument  would  have  been 
valid,  could  we  have  reafoned  only  from 
the  reciprocal  ufe  of  thefe  names;  but,  as 
we  reafon  not  meerly  from  this,  but  from 
the  appropriation  alfo  of  the  fame  work, 
and  the  fame  moral  endowments,  to  the 
fame  perfons  under  thefe  different  names, 
the  arguing  is  unexceptionably  ftrong  and 
conclulive.  And  to  it  is  confeffed  to  be 
by  fome  of  the  beft  writers  in  favor  of 
epifcopacy,  particularly  by  the  late  celebra- 
ted bifhop  Hoadly,  who,  far  from  calling 
in  queftion  the  ftrength  of  this  way  of  argu- 
ing, acknowledges  it's  force,  *  and  pleads, 
that  the  bifhops  of  the  church  of  England 
don't  anfwer  to  thole  that  arepromifcuoully 
called  either  bifhops  or  prefbyters  in  the 
new-teframent,  but  to  officers  fuperior  to 
them:  A  fuggellion  we  (hall  have  opportu- 
nity afterwards  to  confider.     But,  previous 

to 

*  "  Reafonablencf*  of  conformuy  to  the  church  of  England. " 
page  383,  389,  &c. 


ScAIPTURAL    AND    VALID. 


29 


to  this,    we  fha'll  go  on  to  the  laft  branch 
of  the  prefent  argument,   and  fay, 

That  thefe  officers  of  equal  rank,  who 
are  promifcuoufly  called  either  bifhops  or 
prefbyters,  were  endowed  with  all  the  or- 
dinary powers  proper  to  be  exercifed  in  the 
church  of  Chrift,  with  that  of  ordination, 
as  well  as  thofe  of  teaching,  baptifmg  and 
administering  the  Lord's  fupper. 

That  they  were  authorifed  to  preach 
andadminifter  the  facraments,our  opponents 
do  freely  allow.  And  from  hence  it  might 
be  cohfequentially  argued,  a  fortiori,  that 
they  were  empowered  alfo  to  ordain.  For 
thefe  are  minifterial  a£ts  more  excellent  and 
important  in  their  nature,  than  that  of  or- 
dination. —  But  the  limits  to  which  I  am 
c.oiifined  oblige  me  to  pafs  over  this  argu- 
ment. 

It  is  alfo  allowed,  and  even  infilled 
oh,  by  epifcopal  writers,  that  the  fame 
perfons  who  are  authorifed  to  govern,  are 
in  like  manner,  empowered  to  ordain. 
Now,  it  were  eafy  to  (how,  from  the  fcrip- 
tures,  that  the  former  of  thele  powers  was 
given  to  prefbyters;  from  whence  it  might 
be  inferred,  that  they  were  vefted  with  the 
latter.      Bat  this  argument  alfo  I  (hall  dif- 

mifs, 


30     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

mifs,  that  I  may  have  time  more  fully  to 
lay  before  you  the  dired  proof  we  have, 
that  the  power  of  ordination  was  lodged 
with  ordinary  pallors  or  prefbyters. 

And  we  prove  this  from fcripture-inftan- 
ces  of  this  kind  of  ordination. 

If  thefacred  books  of  the  new-teftament 
prefent  to  our  view  examples  of  ordination 
by  prefbyters,  we  fhall  take  it  for  granted, 
this  will  be  efteemed  a  good  reafon  why 
we  fhould  think,  they  were  veiled  with 
ordaining  power;  and  that  prefbyters  now 
will  a£l  warrantably,  while  they  copy  after 
the  pattern  that  is  fet  them  in  the  infpired 
Tvritings.  It  only  remains  therefore  to  pro- 
duce thefe  inflances. 

The  firlt  is  that  ,of the  feparation  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul  to  the  work  to  which 
God  had  called  them ;  the  account  whereof 
is  recorded  *  in  thefe  words,  "  There  weie 
in  the  church  that  was  at  Antioch  certain 
prophets  and  teachers. — As  they  mini  fired 
to  the  Lord,  and  faded,  the  holy  Ghoft 
laid,  feparate  me  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  the 
work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And 
when  they  had  failed  and  prayed,  and  laid 
hands  on  them,  they  lent  them  away/' 
This  is   the  moll  circumftantial   account 

given 

*  A&s  xiii.  I,  2,  3. 


Scriptural  and  valid. 


3* 


given  in  fcripture  of  an  ordination.  The 
perfons  ordained  were  previoiifly  called  of 
God;  they  were  fet  apart  to  the  fpecial 
work  to  which  they  had  been  called;  all 
the  minifterial  a&s  any  where  mentioned, 
in  thCnew-teftament,  as  accompanying  the 
feparation  of  perfons  to  the  fervice  of  the 
church  of  Chrift,  were  performed,  impofiti- 
on  of  hands,  fading  and  prayer ;  and  what 
is  moredire&ly  toourpurpofe,theordainers 
were"  the  prophets  and  teachers "  of  the 
church  at  Antioch.  Thefe  teachers  were 
its  ordinary  pallors,  the  fame  officers  that 
are  elfe where  promifcuoufly  called  bifhops 
or  prefbyters.  Mofl  certainly,  they  could 
not  be  bifhops,  in  the  fenfe  of  the  church 
of  England,  becaufe  there  was  a  plurality 
of  them  in  this  church.  What  more  can 
be  wanting  to  make  this  a  compleat  inflance 
in  our  favor  ? 

The  objections  againft  it  only  ferve  as 
fo  many  occafions  to  place  it  in  a  ftronger 
point  of  light. 

JTis  faid,  by  Turrianus,  biftiop  Bilfon, 
and  fome  others,  that  this  feparation  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul  was  the  act,  not  of  the 
teachers,  but  of  the  prophets  (extraordinary 
officers)  who  impofed  hands  with  them. 
But  this  is  only  faid,    not  proved;    nor  can 

it 


32     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

it  be  proved.  The  divine  order,  "  feparate 
me  Barnabas  and  Paul,"  was  as  truly  di- 
rected to  thefe  teachers,  as  to  the  prophets; 
they  as  certainly  laid  hands  on  thefe  perfons, 
and  prayed  over  them,  in  feparating  them 
to  their  work ;  and  as  much  is  attributed  to 
them,  relative  to  their  feparation,  as  to  the 
prophets.  And  confequently,  if  it  can  be 
argued,  from  any  thing  that  is  here  laid  to 
thefe  prophets,  or  that  is  fpoken  of  as  done 
by  them,  that  they  were  vefted  with  the 
power  of  ordination  ;  it  may,  in  the  fame 
way,  and  with  equal  ftrength,  be  argued, 
that  the  teachers  alfo  were  endowed  with 
the  fame  power;  for  there  is  nothing  faid 
to  the  prophets,  but  what  is  equally  faid  to 
the  teachers;  nor  was  any  thing  done  by 
the  former,  but  the  fame  was  done  by  the 
latter. 

It  is  pleaded,  by  the  whole  body  of 
epifcopal  writers,  that  Barnabas  and  Paul 
were,  before  this,commiffioned  minifters  of 
Chrift;  and  that  their  prcfent  feparation 
was 'only  to  a  fpecial  fervice  among  the 
Gentiles.  It  is  acknowledged;  but,  at  the 
fame  time,  denied  that  this  makes  any  real 
alteration  in  the  cafe.  For  it  is  to  be  rc-- 
membred,  the  thing  intended  by  ordina- - 
tion  is  not,  that  the  ordainers  fhould  com— 
million-  perfons  to  do  the  .work  of  the  rnini-  . 

itrv. . 


Scriptural  and  valid.  33 

ftry.     This  is  done  by  Chrift.     It  only  be- 
longs to  them  to  declare  who  thefe  perfons 
are,  and  feparate  them  to  the  work  to  which 
Chrift  has  commiffioned  them.    They  don't 
make  them  minifters ;  but,  being  authorifed 
hereto,    give  them  an  authentic  character 
as  fach   in  the  eye    of  the  world.      They 
don't  confer  upon  them  their  authority  in 
the  gofpel-kingdom  ;  but  let  them  into  the 
exercife  of  the  authority  proper  to  their  of- 
fice, with  the  folemnity  the  fcriptureefteems 
regular   and    decent.     And   it  might  feem 
good  to  the  holy  Ghoft  to  order,  that  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul,    tho'  before  commiffioned 
and  fent  by  Chrift,  fhould  yet,  at  this  time, 
be  feparated  to  their  work  by  man,  in  the 
common    and  ordinary  wra3r.     Neither  of 
them,  from  anything  faid  of  the  matter  in 
the  facred  books,  appear  to  have  been  thus 
feparated  before   now  ;  and  as  they  were 
now  feparated  to  the  wrork  to  which  they 
had   been   called    by  impoiition  of  hands, 
with  fafting  and   prayer,  it  may  with  all 
reafon  be  affirmed,  that  this  feparation  was 
a  true  fcripture-ordination.     All  the  out- 
ward  a^Hons   common  to  an    ordinntion 
were    performed   upon   this  occaiion,  and 
particularly   that  of  laying   on  of  hands. 
They    were,  in  a  word,  feparated  to  the 
fervice  affigned  them  in  the  fame  way  that 
Timothy  was  feparated   to  the  miniftcrial 

D  work, 


34-     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

work,  and  afterwards  feparated  others  to 
it  ;  in  the  fame  way  Titus  was  directed  to 
ordain  elders  in  the  churches  at  Crete  ;  yea, 
in  the  fame  way  they  themfelves  ordained 
ciders  at  Lyftra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch  in 
Piildia,  and  this,  while  upon  the  very  fer- 
vice  they  were  now  ieparated  to.  And  why 
their  feparation,  at  this  time,  fliould  not  be 
efteemed  as  proper  a  fcripture-ordination 
as  their's,  which  was  effecled  by  the  per- 
formance of  the  fame  outward  actions,  no 
better  reafon  can  be  given,  than  that  it  will 
not  fall  in  with  thefcheme  of  our  opponents. 

It  is  further  objected,  this  feparation  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul  was  in  confequence  of 
an  immediate  order  from  the  holy  Ghoft, 
and  therefore  a  precedent  not  pleadable  but 
in  like  circumftances.  The  anfwer  is  ob- 
vious. ;  Both  Timothy  and  Titus  were  im- 
mediately directed  by  an  apoftle  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  fpeaking  to  them  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  holy  Ghoft,  to  ordain  paftors  at 
Ephefus  and  Crete  ;  and  yet,  the  objeclors 
themfelves  plead  thefe  initances  in  fupport 
of  the  right  of  bifliops,  in  their  fenfe  of  the 
word,  to  ordain  ;  and  this,  to  the  exclufion 
of  prefbyters.  And  if  the  plea  is  good  on 
their  ildc,  it  is  equally  fo  on  our's.  I  would 
fay  further,  this  objection,  inftead  of  letting 
afidc  the  inftancc  before  us  as  a  precedent, 

makes 


Scriptural  and  valid. 


35 


makes  it  the  more  ftrongly  valid.  For  it 
cannot  be  fuppofed,  if  ordinary  teachers 
were  unfuitable  church-officers  to  perform 
the  bufinefs  of  ordination,  that  the  holy 
Ghoft  would  have  ordered  them  to  do  it. 
And,  by  his  coftimitting  this  work  to  them, 
we  have  an  authentic  precept,  as  well  as 
example^  for  ordination  by  common  tea- 
chers, {landing  ordinary  paftors  of  the 
churches.  And  let  n1e  acfd  here,  it  is  high- 
ly probable,  this  direction  from  the  holy 
Ghoft,  giving  rife  to  this  inftance  of  ordi- 
nation by  ordinary  teachers,  was  intended 
for  a  precedent  to  the  Gentile  churches  in 
all  after  times.  This  was  the  judgment  of 
the  learned  Dr.  Lightfoot.  "  No  better 
reafon,  fays  he  *,  can  be  given  of  this  pre- 
fent  action,  than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby 
fet  down  a  platform  of  ordaining  minifters 
to  the  church  of  the  Gentiles  in  future 
times.  " 

Another  inftance  to  our  purpofe  we 
have  in  the  cafe  of  Timothy,  who  was  fe- 
parated  to  the  gofpel-miniftry  with  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  preibytery  ;  as  is 
evident  from'  that  exhortation  of  the  apoftle 
Paul  add  re  fled  to  him,  in  my  text,  "  Neg- 
lect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was 
given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  preibytery  :  "  The 

D  2  meaning 

*  Vol.  I.   page  189. 


36     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

meaning  of  which  words,  compared  with 
what  is  faid  upon  the  matter  in  2  Tim.  i.  6. 
may,  I  think,  be  fully  exprelTed  in  the  fol- 
lowing paraphrafe,  "  Improve  the  gift  of 
the  holy  Ghoft,  which  I  imparted  to  you 
in  an  extraordinary  meafure,  according  to 
the  prophefies  which  went  before  concern- 
ing you,  when  you  was  feparated  to  the 
work  of  the  miniftry  with  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  confiitory  of  prefbyters.  " 

You  obferve,  I  do  not  interpret  the  gift 
here  faid  to  be  in  Timothy  of  his  office  as 
a  minifter,  bat  of  the  communication  of 
the  holy  Ghoft,  in  an  extraordinary  man- 
ner qualifying  him  for  it ;  which  appears 
to  me  the  moft  eafy  and  natural  fenfe.  You 
obferve  likewife,  I  fpeak  of  this  gift  of  the 
holy  Ghoft  as  imparted  to  Timothy,  thro' 
the  hands  of  the  apoftle  Paul,  not  the  hands 
of  the  prefbytery.  There  is  no  certain  ex- 
ample of  fuch  a  communication  to  be  met 
with  in  the  new-teftament.  Perhaps,  the 
holy  Ghoft,  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles,  was 
never  imparted  thn>  any  hands  but  thofc 
of  an  apoftle.  But  fhoukl  it  have  been  o- 
therwiie,  this  was  the  way  of  communi- 
cation in  the  prefent  cafe.  For  the  apoftle 
Paul  exprefsly  fpeaks  of  this  gift  *  as  a  gift 
that  was  in  Timothy  "  by  the  putting  on  of 
his  hands."  Thefe  prefbyters  therefore  did 
1  not 

*  2   Tim.  i.  6. 


Scriptural    and   valid.  37 

not  impofe  hands  on  Timothy  with  a  view 
to  communicate  to  him  this  gift.  It  was 
imparted  wholly  thro'  the  hands  of  the  a- 
poltle  Paul.  And  yet,  the  presbytery  as 
certainly  impofed  their  hands  on  Timothy 
as  Paul  impofed  his.  And  why  ?  No  good 
reafon  can  be  afilgned  for  it  but  this,  that 
they  might  feparate  him  to  the  gofpel-mi- 
niftry  in  the  ordinary  way,  by  ufing  the 
fcripture-rite  common  upon  fuch  an  occa- 
fion.  And  if  it  be  fuppofed,  that  this  gift 
of  the  holy  Ghoft  Was  imparted  to  Timothy 
thro*  the  hands  of  Paul,  about  the  time 
that  he  was  feparated  to  the  miniftry  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  conceflus 
of  prefbyters,  we  (hall  have  an  eafy  and 
coniiftent  fenfe  of  this  whole  affair. 

Th  e  truth  of  the  cafe  feems  plainly  to 
be  this.  The  apoftle  Paul  impofed  his 
hands  on  Timothy  to  communicate  to  him 
the  gift  of  the  holy  Ghoil ;  and  either  with 
the  apoftle,  or,  as  I  rather  think,  afterwards, 
the  council  of  prefbyters  laid  on  their's, 
feparating  him,  by  this  rite,  to  his  work, 
as  Paul  himfelf,  with  Barnabas,  fome  time 
before,  had  been  feparated  to  their's.  And 
very  obfervable,  it.  may  be  proper  to  re- 
mark here,  is  the  analogy  between  this  re- 
paration of  Timothy,  and  that  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas.    They  were  feparated  by  exprefs 

direction 


jk«j 


38     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

dire&ioil  from  the  holy  Ghoft  J  fo  was 
Timothy,  for  he  was  pointed  out  by 
prophecy,  that  is,  by  holy  men  propheti- 
cally fpeaking  of  him  by  inspiration  .of  the 
holy  Ghoft,  as  a  fit  perfon  to  be  employed 
in  the  fervice  of  the  gofpel.  And  it  was 
probably  owing  to  this,  that  he  was  fo 
foon  feparated  to  this  work,  being,  at  this 
time,  a  very  young  man,  and  in  danger, 
on  that  account,  of  being  defpifed.  They 
were  feperated  aifo  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  prophets  and  teachers,  that  is, 
the  ordinary  paitors  of  the  church  at  Ahti- 
och  ;  fo  was  Timothy,  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  company  of  prefbyters, 
refiding  where  he  now  was. 

But  the  pertinency  of  this  inftance  will 
appear  with  a  brighter  luflre,  by  confider- 
ing  the  objections  that  are  made  to  it  /  as, 
by  this  means,  we  fhall  have  an  opportuni- 
ty of  going  more  critically  into  the  exami- 
nation of  it. 

It  is  .objected,  the  word  prefbytery, 
vfte0jtipov,  here  ufed,  means  the  office 
ordained  to,  not  the  confi'ftory  of  ordaining 
prefbyters.  This  was  Calvin's  interpreta- 
tion, when   he   wrote  his  inflitutions  *  ; 

tho' 

t  Says  he,"Quod  de  impofitione  manuum  prefbyterii  dicitur, 
rion  ita  accipio  quafi  Paulus  de  feniorum  collegioloquatur  ; 

fed  hoc  nomine  ordinationcm  ipfam  intelligo  " . 

Inftitut.  lib.  4.  cap.  3.  fetf.   16. 


Scriptural  and  valid.       39 

tho'  afterwards,  in  his  commentary  upon 
this  text,  having  attained  to  greater  matu- 
rity of  judgment,  he  fell  in  with  the  com- 
monly received  fenfe  £.  The  other,  by 
whomfoever  it  is  given,  will  exhibit  a 
down-right  piece  of  nonfenfe,  unlefs  the 
fubftantive  *£effrr*#w  is  made  the  genitive 
cafe,  not  to  the  immediately  foregoing 
word  xs^wy,but  to  that  far  diftant  one  x<*^**or 
and  the  text  be  accordingly  read,  "  Neglect 
not  the  gift  of  the  prefbyteratua  which 
was  given  thee  by  the  laying  on  of  hands/' 
But  this  grammatical  tranfpofition  is  arbi- 
trary beyond  all  reafonable  bounds.  And 
fhould  the  like  liberty  be  taken  in  other 
cafes,  we  might  make  the  fcripture  fpeak, 
in  any  ;place,  juft  what  we  pleafe.  Befides, 
the  word  Tps^ure?;oy  is  never  ufed  in  this 
fenfe  in  the  new-tertament  ;  but  always  as 
fi  gnifying  "  concefTus,  fenatus  prefbytero- 
rum.  , .  This  alfo  is  it's  meaning  in  the  wri- 
tings of  the  fathers,  as  may  be  feen  in  the  fa- 
mous Blondell's  "  apologia  pro  fententia 
Hyeronimi.  "  f  And  this  is  its  meaning 
particularly  in  Ignatius's  epiflles,  whofe 
authority  will  not  be  queftioned  by  thofe 
we  are  at  prefent  concerned  with.  He  often 
ufes  this  word,  and  never  in  any  other  fenfe. 

But 

J   "  Prefbyterium.]    Qui  hie  colle&'vum  nomen  cfle  putant, 
pro  collegio  prefbyterorum   pofitura,    reele  feotiunt  rneo 
judicio.    "  In  loc. 

f  Page    89,   90. 


40     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

But  fhould  we  allow  this  pretended  fenfe 
of  the  word  to  be  the  true  one,  and,  in  con- 
fequence  hereof,  that  Timothy  was  ordain- 
ed, not  by  an  aifembly  of  prefbyters,  but 
to  the  degree  of  the  prefbyterate ;  inftead  of 
helping  the  caufeof  our  opponents,  it  would, 
unluckily  for  them,  very  much  ferve  our's. 
For  Timothy,  according  to  this  interpreta- 
tion, was,  at  the   time,  when  this  epiftle 
was  wrote,  nothing  more  than  a  prefby.ter, 
whatever  he  might  be  afterwards :  And  yet, 
he  is  particularly  apply'd  to,  in  the  epiftle 
itfelf,  as  one  intruded  with  the  power  of 
ordination,and  accordingly  inftrufted  to  ufe 
caution  and  prudence  in  the  management 
of  this  truft,  "  not  fuddenly  laying  hands 
on  any  man."     And  if  Timothy,   while  a 
meer  prefbyter,was  fpoken  of,  by  an  infpir- 
ed    apoftle,  as  one  vefted    with  ordaining 
power,  it  is  as  good  a  proof  of  the  power 
we  are  eftablifhing,as  if  he  was  ordained  by 
a  confiftory  of  prefbyters. 

'Tis  again  faid,  by  the  prcfbytcry  here 
is  intended,  not  an  affembly  of  presby- 
ters, but  the  college  of  apodles.  So  i peak 
Chryfoftom,  Theophilus,  Theodoret,  Oe- 
cumenius,  and  after  them  fuch  learned  men 
as  Dr.  Hammond,  Mr.  Drury,  and  fome 
others;  but,  as  we  imagine,  without  any 
fufiicient  reafod  to  fupport  this  fenfe  of  the 

word. 


Scriptural  and  valid.        41 

word.  It  is  indeed  afenfe  that  carries  with 
it  not  the  leaft  probability  of  truth.  The 
apoftle  Peter,  'tis  true,  introduces  an  ex- 
hortation to  Prefbyters,  by  taking  to  him- 
felf  the  ftile  of  a  fellow-prefbyter,  fi*- 
7rpt<r3vTs?cs  *  •  but  the  apoftles,  in  a  colle&ive 
view,  are  never  once  fpoken  of,  in  thenew- 
teftament,  as  a  prefbytery  ;  nor  is  the  word, 
*peap-jT*piov,  ever  ufed  by  any  ancient  writer 
(  as  Mr.  Boyfe  obferves  )  to  fignify  the 
bench  of  apoftles.  Far  from  this,  when 
met  together  in  council  at  Jerufalem,  upon 
a  fpecial  occafion,  with  the  elders;  they 
are  carefully  and  particularly  diftinguifhed 
from  them,  every  time  they  are  mentioned. ij: 
Nor  can  it  well  be  imagined,  if  the  other 
apoftles  had  joined  with  Paul  in  laying  their 
hands  on  Timothy,  either  for  imparting 
the  holy  Ghoft,  or  feparating  him  to  the 
gofpel-miniftry,  that  this  humble  apoftle 
would  have  omitted  mentioning  their  names, 
fince  he  fo  exprefsly  mentions  his  own. 
Befides,  there  is  not  the  leaft  reafon  to  think, 
tjiiat  either  all,  or  moft,  or  any  confiderable 
number  of  the  apoftles  were  together  at 
this  time.  'Tis  far  more  likely,  from  the 
hiftory  we  have  in  the  a£ts  of  their  travels, 
and  difperfions  from  each  other,  that  Paul 
only  was  now  prefent,  and  that  the  pref- 
bytery that  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy 
was  not  the  company  of  apoftles,  but  fuch 

E  presbyters 

*  1   Pet,  v.   1.  %  Atfs  xvth  chap. 


42     Ordination  by  Presbyter* 

presbyters  as  they  had  confiituted  in  the  fe- 
deral churches. 

But  fhould  it  be  fuppofed,  that  the apof- 
ties  were  now  together,  and  that  this  pref* 
bytery  was  the  afTembly  of  apoftles,  it 
would  be  of  no  real  fervice  to  the  epifcopai 
caufe.  For  'tis  plain,  they  acted  not,  in 
their  apoilolrcal  character,  but  as  presbyters. 
Why  elfe  are  they  called  a  presbytery  ?  It 
cannot  reafonably  be  thought,  if  the  holy 
Ghoft  intended  to  declare,  in  this  text,  that 
Timothy  was  oidained  by  apoftolical  au- 
thority ,and  not  that  which  is  veiled  in  pref- 
byters,  he  would  fo  exprefsfy  have  fpoken 
of  the  apoftles  as  acting  in  this  affair  as  a 
presbytery.  It  fhould  rather  feem  evident 
from  hence,  that  the  work  they  now  did 
was  common  and  ordinary,  and  fuch  as 
might  be  done  by  thefe  officers,  under 
whofe  fty  le  they  are  reprefented  as  perform-- 
rh'g  this  a&ion. 

Finally,  it  is  pleaded,  that  Timothy 
was  veiled  with  his  office  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  apoftle  Paul's  hands,  while  the  con- 
iifrory  of  presbyters,  by  impofing  their's, 
only  gave  their  concurring  approbation. 
And  for  the  proof  of  this  we  are  turned  ro 
2  Tim.  i.  6.  where  Paul,  calling  upon  Ti- 
mothy "  to  ftir  up  the  gift  that  was  in  him," 

adds, 


Scriptural  and  valid.         43 

adds,  "  which  is  in  thee  by  the  putting  on 
of  my  hands.  " 

The  anfwer  is  eafy.  This  fame  apoftle 
attributes  as  much  to  the  hands  of  the  prci- 
bytery  in  1  Tim.  4.  14,  as  he  does  to  his 
own  hands  in  the  place  referred  to  in  his 
fecond  ep'.ftle  ;  and  conf -quenriy  there  is 
jufr  the  fame  reafon  to  fay,  that  the  pret 
bytery  ordained  Timothy,  as  that  Paul  or- 
dained him.  Befides,  it  cannot  be  reafo- 
itably  fuppofed,  that  an  infpired  apoitle 
flionld  permit  a  number  of  presbyters  to 
join  with  him  in  the  faered  folemnity  of 
impofing  hands,  if  they  had  not  a  right,  as 
officers  in  the  church  of  Chrift,  to  perform 
this  action  ;  and  their  performing  it  is  a 
fure  argument  of  their  right  to  do  the  thing 
intended  by  it,  that  is,  to  feparate  a  perfon 
to  the  work  of  the  gofpei-miniitry  :  As 
they  that  have  a  right  to  apply  water  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
holy  Gholr,  have  a  right  to  baptife  ;  and 
they  that  have  a  right  to  fet  apart  bread 
and  wine,  and  dtftribute  it  to  the  people, 
have  a  right  to  adminilter  the  Lord's  (upper. 

But  the  truth  of  the  matter  is,  it  is  far 
from  being  evident,  that  Paul  impofed 
hands  with  the  presbytery  in  Timothy's 
ordination  ;  and  I  am  ftrongly  inclined  to 

E  2  think 


44     Oadination  by  Presbyters 

think  he  did  not.     The  gift  the  apoftle 
fpeaks  of,  in  his  fecond  epiftle  to  Timothy, 
which,  fays  he,  "  is  in  thee  by  the  putting 
on  of  my  hands,"  was  undoubtedly  the  gift 
of  the  holy  Ghoft  in  miraculous  powers  ; 
but  whatever  the  gift  wag,  it  was  imparted 
by  the  apoftle's  own  hands.     Not  a  word 
is  faid    of  the  presbytery,  or  any   perfon 
whatever,    as  joining    with  him,    not    fo 
much  as  in  a  way  of  concurring  approba- 
tion.    Whereas,  in  the  pafTage  we  are  now. 
confidering,  recorded  in  the  firft    epiftle, 
the  thing  that  was  done,  whatever  it  was, 
was  done  with   the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery.     Their  hands  only  are 
mentioned, not  a  word  is  drop'd  inilnuating 
that  Paul's  hands  were  joined  with  their's., 
It  is   therefore  highly  probable,  if  not  cer- 
tain, that  Paul  impoied  hands  on  Timothy 
to  confer  the  gift  of  the  holy  Ghoft,  which 
was  ufually,  if  not  always,  done  by   fome 
apoftle  in  this  way;  and  that  the  presbytery 
afterwards  laid  on   their  hands  for  another 
purpofe,  that  of  feparating  him  to  the  work 
of  the    miniftry,  which    alfo  was   ufually 
done  in  this  way. 

Or  if  it  fhould  be  ftill  faid,  that  Paul 
laid  hands  on  Timothy  at  the  fame  time  the 
presbytery  impofed  their's,  he  did  it  prin- 
cipally that  through  his  hands,  being  an 
cpolllc,  the  holy  Ghoft  might  be  imparted 

to 


Scriptural  and  valid.  4.5 

to  him  ;  they,  that  he  might,  in  the  ordi- 
nary method,  ^be  feparated  to  the  gofpet- 
miniftry.  So  that,  in  either  of  thefe  ways, 
wc  have  an  evident  inftance  of  ordination 
by  presbyters.  In  the  former,  they  were 
fole  ordainers  ;  in  the  latter,  ordainers  ia 
partnerfhip  with  the  apoftlePaul. 

I  can't  help  faying  here,  if,  inftead  off 
"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pref- 
bytery,  "  it  had  been  wrote,  "  the  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  epifcopate,  " 
our  opponents  would  have  triumphed  in 
having  an  unexceptionable  inftance  of 
epifcopal  ordination.  But  this  occaiion 
of  glorving  is  happily  taken  away.  And 
it  is  remarkable,  tho'  we  have  examples, 
in  fcripture,  of  ordination  by  both  extraor- 
dinary and  ordinary  officers,  by  apoftles, 
by  prophets,  by  evangclifts,  by  teachers 
or  common  pallors  and  presbyters;  yet  we 
no  where  read  of  an  ordination  by  any 
perfon  under  the  name  of  a  bifhop.  There 
is  a  total  filence  throughout  the  new-telta- 
ment  upon  this  head.  This  obfervation, 
to  nfe  the  words  of  your  worthy  Divinity- 
profeflbr,  in  a  book  of  his,  relative  to  this 
controver.fy,  wrote  near  40  years  ago,  enti- 
tled, "  fober  remarks,"  and  which  I  would 
recommend  to  your  diligent  perufal,  "  This 
obfervation,  fays  he,  *  "  may  perhaps  draw 

"  fome 

*  Page  115. 


46     Ordination  by  Presbyters 


cc  fome  weak  perfons  into  doubts  about  the 

"  validity  of  epifcopal  ordination. — But  the 

"  truth  of  the  cafe   is,    that  bifhops   and 

4<  presbyters  are  one  and  the  fame  order  by 

"  divine  inftitution ;  and  that  they  iucceed 

"  the     apoftles,      in    all    their    ordinary 

u  powers,    of  which  that  of  ordination  is 

"  one;  which  is  warrant  enough  for  ordi- 

"  nation  by  presbyters,  and  the  very  fame 

11  warrant  which   thofe  have  for  it,    who 

M  are  now,  by  cuftom  and   human  conftw 

"  tution,    dignified  and  diftinguifhed  with 

'*  the  title  of  bifhops." 

I  have  now  confidered  the  argument 
at  firft  propofed,  in  all  its  parts.  And  the- 
fum  of  what  has  been  faid,  that  we  may 
have  it  in  one  view,  is  this;  that  the  apof- 
tles  of  Chrift,  in  confequence  of  their  com- 
miffion  from  him,  and  as  afting  under  the 
infpiration  of  the  holy  Ghoft,  conftituted 
and  fettled  in  the  church,  befides  the  order 
of  deacons,  no  more  than  one  order  of 
fixed  pallors;  that  they  promifcuoufly 
point  out  the  paftors  of  this  one  order  by 
the  names  bifhop  and  presbyter,  fometimes 
ufing  the  former,  fometimes  the  latter,  and 
meaning  by  either  precifely  thefe  paftors 
of  one  and  the  fame  order  ■  and  finally  that 
they  give  us  abundant  reafon  to  believe, 
that  thefe  paflors  of  this  one  order   were 

endowed 


Scriptural  a$d  valid.       47 

endowed  particularly  with  the  power  of 
ordination,  inftances  whereof  they  have 
left  upon  facred  record.  The  conclufion 
from  which  premifes,  if  they  have  been 
clearly  and  fully  evidenced  to  be  true,  as 
I  trull  they  have,  is  unqueftionably  this, 
that  ordination  by  presbyters,  according 
to  the  ufual  method  in  thefe  churches,  is 
fafe  and  valid,  becaufe  agreeable  to  the  holy 
fcriptures,  and  warranted  by  them. 

But  notwithftanding  all  that  has  been 
offered  in  proof  of  the  point  we  have  been 
upon,  it  ought  not,  it  is  acknowledged,  to 
be  received  as  truth,  unlefs  the  contrary 
evidence  can  fairly  be  fet  afide.  This 
therefore  makes  it  neceflary  to  confider 
what  is  pleaded  on  the  other  fide  of  the 
queftion.  And  this  I  fhall  now  do,  giving 
what  is  faid  its  full  ftrength,  fo  far  as  I  am 
able.  For  if  the  counter-evidence,  in  it's 
full  weight,  will  not  admit  of  a  juft  and 
folid  anfwer,  we  ought,  in  all  reafon,  to 
eftecm  the  above  proof  to  be  defective, 
how  plaufible  foever  it  may  appear  in  a 
feparate  view. 

Th  e  firft  thing  faid  in  favor  of  the  fupe- 
riority  of  bifhops  to  presbyters,  and  in  vin- 
dication of  their  claim  to  the  powers  of 
ordination  and  government  is,  that  they 

arc 


48     Ordination  by  Presbyt&rs 

are  fucceffors  to  the  apoftles,  and  derive 
from  them  this  fnperiority  of  order  and 
power. 

The  anfwer  is  ready.  The  apoftles, 
as  fuch,  were  extraordinary  officers,  and 
had  no  fucceffors.  They  received  their 
commiffion  immediately  from  Chrift,  their 
charge  was  unlimited,  their  province  the 
whole  world.  They  were,  by  office,  the 
teachers  of  all  nations,  had  power  to  gather 
churches  every  where,  to  fettle  them  with 
proper  officers,  to  infpeft  over  them,  and 
give  binding  rules  and  orders  for  the  good 
government  of  them  ;  and  all  this,  under 
the  infallible  guidance  of  the.  holy  Ghoft. 
It  will  not  be  pretended,  I  truft,  that  bi- 
fhops,  in  thefe  refpeds,  are  fucceffors  to 
the  apoftles.  In  their  proper  apoftolic  cha- 
radler,  they  were  far  exalted  above  all  bi- 
fhops.  As  the  great  Dr.  Barrow  expreffes 
it,  (  to  adapt  his  words  to  the  prefent  cafe  ) 
"  It  would  be  a  difparagement  to  an  apof- 
"  tie  to  take  upon  him  the  bifhoprick  of 
"  Rome  j  as  it  would  be  to  the  king,  to 
"  become  mayor  of  London  ;  or  to  the  bi- 
"  (hop  of  London,  to  become  vicar  of  Pan- 
"  crals.  ■*  The  apoftolic  office,  as  fuch, 
was  perfonal  and  temporary  ;  not  fuccei- 
five  and  communicable  :  Neither  did  the 
apoftles  communicate  it.  Thofe  parts  in- 
deed 


Scriptural  and  valid.       49. 

deed  of  their  office  which  were  ordinary, 
and  intended  for  perpetual  ufe,  fuch  as 
feeding  the  church  of  God  with  the  word 
and  facraments,and  reflraining  them  within 
the  rules  of  good  order,  were  communica- 
ted from  them  to  others.  We  have  accor- 
dingly feen,  that  they  appointed  {landing 
pallors  in  the  churches,  veiling  them  with 
all  the  powers  proper  for  the  work  of  the 
miniftry,  for  the  edifying  the  body  ofChrifl. 
And  in  a  lax  fenfe,  thefe  may  be  called  fuc- 
ceflbrs  to  the  apoflles,  as  having  derived 
their  power  from  them  in  Chrifl's  name. 
And  in  this  loofe  fenfe  only  may  bifhops  be 
faid  to  be  fucceffors  to  the  apoflles.  They 
certainly  do  not  fucceed  them  in  their  office, 
confidered  as  apoflolic;  but  in  fuch  powers 
of  it  only  as  are  ordinary  and  communica- 
ble. And  here  they  are  perfectly  upon  a 
par  with  common  paflors  or  prefbyters, 
unlefs  it  can  be  proved,  that  the  apoflles  in 
communicating  thefe  powers,  made  a  dif- 
ference, committing  fome  to  a  fuperior  or- 
der called  bifhops,  and  others  to  an  inferior 
one  defcribed  by  the  name  of  prefbyters. 
This  is  what  we  may  reafonably  expeft  to 
fee  evidenced.  The  new-teflament  is  o- 
pen.  If  it  contains  any  fuch  evidence, 
let  it  be  produced.  We  imagine  it  contains 
clear  evidence  of  the  contrary,  and  that  we 
have  given  fuch  evidence.     Meerly  the  cal~ 

P  ling 


50     Ordination  by  Presbytfrs 

ling  bifhops  fucceflfors  to  the  apoftles  won't 
prove  their  Superiority  ;  tho\  by  the  wayr 
they  are  never  fo  called  in  the  facred  books. 
And  fhould  it  be  allowed,  that  the  fathers, 
in  after  times,  Speak  of  them  in  this  ftile, 
it  can  be  in  a  loofe  fenfe  only  ;  meaning, 
that  apoftolic  power  had  been  communica- 
ted to  them,  tho'  what  that  power  was,  can 
never  be  determined  meerly  by  their  being 
called  the  apoftles  fucceffors.  The  bible 
only  can  fettle  this  point. 

It  is  further  faid,  in  defence  of  the' epis- 
copal fcheme,  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  bifhops,  the  one  of  Ephefus,  the  other 
of  Crete,  meaning  hereby  officers  of  a  rank 
Superior  to  the  other  paftors  of  the  churches 
in  thofe  places,  with  whom,  as  fuch,  were 
lodged  the  powers  of  ordination  and  juris- 
diction. 

'Tis  reply'd,  they  are  neither  of  them 
called  bifhops  any  where  in  the  new-tefta- 
ment.  This  name,  'tis  true,  is  given  them 
in  the  poftfcripts  to  the  epiftlcs  that  are  di- 
rected to  them.  But  I  need  not  fay,  that 
thefe  poftfcripts  are  after-additions,  and  not 
very  ancient  ones  neither.  This  is  Suffici- 
ently known  to  all  men  of  learning,  who 
accordingly  lay  no  ftrefs  upon  them.  'Tisr 
true  likewifc,  that  they  are  called  bifhops, 


the. 


Scriptural    and   valid.         51 

the  one  of  Ephefus,  the  other  of  Crete,  by 
the  fathers  ;  but  not  by  the  more  primitive 
ones.  Dr.  Whitby  honeftly  confefles,  $ 
that  "  he  could  not  find,  within  the  three 
firft  centuries,  any  intimations  that  they 
bore  this  name.  "  He  adds  indeed,  "  this 
defeat  is  abundantly  fupplyed  by  the  con- 
Current  fuffrage  ofthe4thand  5th  centuries." 
But  thefe  were  times  too  far  diftant  from 
Timothy  and  Titus  to  be  rely'd  on  forihe 
truth  of  this  fa£t  ;  efpecially,  as,  in  thefe 
times,  they  had  greatly  departed  from  the 
fimplicity  of  the  gofpel.  And  'tis  obferva- 
ble,  Eufebius,  the  great  fource  of  primitive 
eccleiiaftical  hiftory,  only  fays,  "  it  is  re- 
ported, "  i<7Tops/r*t  *  dicitur,  "  that  Timo- 
thy was  bifhop  of  Ephefus,  and  Titus 
bifhop  of  Crete.  "  And  he  has  himfelf 
taught  us,  how  far  we  may  depend  upon 
this  report,  by  what  he  tells  us  a  little  be- 
fore, §  "  that  he  could  trace  no  foot-fteps 
of  others  going  before  him,  only  in  a  few 
narratives."  And  the  fuffrage  of  thefe  cen- 
turies is  the  lefs  to  be  regarded,  in  this  par- 
ticular, becaufe  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
fcripture-account  of  Timothy  and  Titus. 
Timothy  is  exprefsly  called"  an  evangelift," 
2  Tim.  iv.  6.  And  his  work,  as  fuch,  was  in^ 
confident  with  his  being  the  bifhop  of  Ephe- 
fus, or  any  other  church.     The  bufinefs  of 

F  2  an 

X  Preface  to  the  epiftle  to  Titus,     *  Lib.  III.  can,  4. 
$  Lib.  I.  cap.  ji. 


52     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

an  evangelift,  as  Eufebius  J  juftly  reprefents 
it,  was,  u  to  lay  the  foundation  of  faith  in 
"  ftrange  nations,to  conftitute  them  paftors ; 
"  and,  having  committed  to  them  the  cul- 
11  tivating  thofe  new  plantations,  to  pais 
11  on  to  other  countries  and  nations."  And 
this  defcription  of  evangelifts"  perfectly  a- 
grees  with  what  the  fcripture  fays  both  of 
Timothy  and  Titus.  They  evidently  ap- 
pear to  have  been  itinerant  miflionaries,  not 
fettled  paftors.  To  be  fnre,  they  fuftained 
no  fixed  relation  to  the  churches  of  Ephefus 
and  Crete,  and  confeqnently  were  not  the 
bifhops  of  therri  ;  for  they  continually  went 
about  from  place  to  place,  as  the  fervice  of 
the  churches  made  it  neceffary,  and  were 
as  long,  and  it  may  be  longer,  in  other 
churches  than  thofe  that  are  faid  to  be  their 
fettled  charge.  And  would  any  man,  as  Mr. 
Boyfb  expreffes  it,f  "  call  him  thefixtbifhop 
of  London  that  fhould  only  perform  the 
epifcopal  functions  there  for  a  year  or  two, 
but  for  twenty  or  thirty  years  is  found  to 
perform  the  fame  epifcopal  functions  in 
moft  other  diocefes  of  England,  nay  in  ma- 
ny diocefes  in  France,  Spain  and  Italy  ?" 
Can  fuch  an  itinerary  miniftry  as  this  con- 
fift  with  a  man's  fixt  relation  to  a  particu- 
lar church,  which  enjoys  no  more  of  his 
labors  and  care  than  twenty  or  thirty 
churches  more  ?  But 

\  Lib.   III.  cap.   37. 

f  "  Account  of  the  ancient  epifcopacy,  "  page  331, 


Scriptural- and  .valid.*         53 

But  the  flrength  of  the  argument  from 
Timothy  and  Titus  chiefly  lies  in  this,  that 
they  were  charged  with  the  management 
of  ordination  at  Ephefus  and  Crete.  Titus 
particularly  was  left  in  Crete  with  a  profef- 
fed  view  to  his  ordaining  elders  in  the  cities 
there.  The  anfwer  is,  it  will  not  from 
hence  follow,  that  they  were  veiled  With 
an  exclulive  power  of  ordination.  I  argue 
upon  the  matter  thus  ;  either  elders  had 
been-  fettled  before  this  Sift  the  churches  at 
Ephefus  and  Crete,  or  they  had  not ;  and 
whether  our  opponents  proceed  upon  the 
former,  or  latter  of  thefe  fuppofitions,  their 
reafoning  is  inconclufive. 

If  elders  had  been  fettled. in  thefe  chur- 
ches, the  confequence  is  far  from  being  jufl, 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  particularly  en- 
trutled  with  the  affair  of  ordination  in  thefe 
churches,  therefore  the  power  was  in  them 
exclufive  of  the  Handing  pallors.  By  this 
way  of  arguing,  they  mull  have  been  fole 
preachers,  as  well  as  ordainers  ;  for  they 
are  as  particularly  charged  to  do  the  work 
of  preaching,  as  that  of  ordaining.  And 
by  this  fame  method  of  reafoning,  the 
church  of  Rome  mud  be  ju (lifted  in  their 
plea  for  Peter's  fupremacy  ;  for  there  are 
not  wanting  texts  of  fcripture,  in  which  he 
is  particularly  apply'd  to,  and  charged  with 

inflru&ions 


5+     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

inftru&ions  and  orders  without  mentioning 
the  other  apoftles.  The  plain  truth  is,  as 
thefe  svangelifts  were  afliftants  to  the  a- 
poftles,  and  left  in  thofe  churches  extraor- 
dinarily qualified  to  fupply  their  place,  it 
was  proper  they  fhould  have  particularly 
committed  to  them  the  chief  management 
of  ordination,  and  all  other  affairs  pertain- 
ing to  the  kingdom  of  Chrift,  while  they 
continued  among  them.  But  how  does 
this  prove,  that,  when  they  were  gone,  as 
was  foon  the  cafe,  this  fame  work  might 
not  be  done  by  the  Handing  paftors  ?  Or 
that  the  flanding  paftors  might  not,  or  that 
they  did  not,  join  with  them  in  doing  it, 
while  they  were  a&ually  prefent  ?  Tis 
far  more  probable  that  they  did,  than  that 
they  did  not*  Timothy's  ordination  by 
the  confiftory  of  presbyters  would  natural- 
ly put  him  upon  going  into  the  like  prac- 
tice. To  be  fure,  fome  pofitive  good  e\> 
dence  ought  to  be  given,  tlw  he  did  not, 
and  that  the  power  of  ordinatiop  was  folely 
and  exclufively  vefted  in  him, 

The  other  fuppofition  was  that  of  there 
being  no  fettled  paftors  in  thefe  churches, 
when  thefe  inflru&ions  were  given  to  Ti- 
mothy and  Titus.  And  in  this  view  of  the 
faft,  I  fee  not  but  the  difpute  muft  be  at 
once  ended  ;  for  their  being  directed  to  or- 
dain 


Scriptural  and  valid.         55 

dain  pallors  in  churches  that  as  yet  had 
none,  can't  poffibly  prove,  that  thefe  paf- 
tors, when  ordained,  might  not  ordain  o- 
thers  alfo.  And  perhaps  this  is  the  real 
truth  of  the  cafe.  I  am  well  affured,  it 
will  be  found,  upon  trial,  to  be  an  infupe- 
rable  talk  to  make  it  appear,  that  either  of 
thefe  churches,  at  this  time,  were  fettled 
with  pallors.  They  were,  moll  probably, 
in  the  fame  imperfect  Hate  with  the  chur- 
ches of  Ly  lira,  Iconium,  andAntioch,  be- 
fore Barnabas  and  Paul,  upon  their  return 
to  them,  ordained  them  elders.  And,  it 
may  be,  as  Dr.  Benfon  well  obferves,  * 
moll  of  the  churches  the  apolllePaul  writes 
to  were  in  the  fame  imperfe6l  unfettled  ftate, 
at  the  time  when  he  wrote  to  them. 

I  shall  only  add  here,  as  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  evangelills,  they  had  no  fuccef- 
fors ;  or  if  they  had,  fixed  bifhops  could  not 
be  their  fucceflbrs.  Nor  will  it  follow,  be- 
cause thefe  evangelills  were  left  at  Ephefus 
and  Crete  to  manage  the  affair  of  ordination, 
thajt  therefore  bifhopfe,  any  more  than  pref- 
byters,  have  this  power.  It  mull  firll  be 
proved,  and  upon  the  foot  of  good  evidence, 
that  bifhops,  meaning  hereby  officers  in 
the  church  fuperior  to  presbyters,  were  fix- 
ed 

*  Eflay  at  the  end  of  his  paraphrafe  and  note  on  the  epiftle 
of  Paul  to  Timothy,  page  So. 


56     Ordination  Br  Presbyters 

ed  in  thefe  places,  and  that  the  ordaining 
power  was  lodged  with  them,  to  the  exclu- 
llon  of  presbyters  \  which  has  never  yet 
been  done,  and  I  am  fully  perfuaded  never 
will. 

It  is  pleaded  yet  further,  that  the  angels 
of  the  feven  Allan  churches,  in  the  book 
of  the  Revelation,  were  bifhops  ;    that  is, 
fuch  bifhops  as  the  prefent  argument  is  con- 
cerned with,  or  they  are  mentioned  to  no 
purpofe.     But  how  does   it   appear,  that 
thefe  angels  were  bifhops  in  this  fenfe  ?    If 
the  wTord  is  here  ufed  collectively,  meaning 
the  paftors  of  thefe   churches,  and  not  a 
fingle  one  in  each  church,  the  argument  is 
at   once  fuperfeded.     And  it  ought  to  be 
thus  understood.     Such  an  expofition  bed 
agrees  with  the  manner  of  fpeaking  thro'- 
out  this  whole  book,  in  which  like   words 
are  commonly  ufed  in  this  collective  fenfe. 
Nor,  unlefs  the  word   is  thus   interpreted, 
will  the  other  pallors  of  thefe  churches  have 
any  concern    in  the  meffages  that  are  lent 
to  the  churches,  which  it  would  be  highly 
unrcafonable  to  fuppofe.    But,  if  every  one 
of  thefe  angels  fhould  be  allowed  to  mean 
a  fingle  perfon,  how   will  it  follow    here- 
from, that  they  were  bifhops    verted  with 
the  fole  power  of  ordination  and  govern- 
ment in  thefe  churches  ?    The  word  angel 

carries 


ScRIfTUftAL  AND  VALID. 


57 


catries  In  it's  meaning  nothing  that  im- 
ports this  ;  nor  is  there  any  thing  faid,  in 
the  epiftles  themfelves,  from  whence  it  can 
be  deduced.  The  argument  therefore  muft 
be  wholly  grounded  on  this,  that  thefe  an- 
gels are  fingled  out,  and  particularly  wrote 
to.  But  this  they  might  be,  fuppofing 
there  was  no  greater  diitinftion  between 
them  and  the  other  paftors,  than  between 
Peter  and  the  other  apoftles  ;  between  rec- 
tors and  curates  ;  between  an  aflembly  of 
equal  minifters  and  their  prsefes.  In  fhort, 
it  mud  be  proved  by  other  evidence  than 
what  is  contained  in  the  word  angel,  or 
the  application  of  this  word  to  a  fingle 
perfon,  if  proved  at  all,  that  bifhops  were 
hereby  intended,  meaning  by  bifhops  of- 
ficers in  thefe  churches  endowed  with  the 
fole  power  of  ordination  and  govern- 
ment ;  wrhich  evidence  has  never  yet  been 
produced. 

The  laft  plea,  and  that  which  is  trium- 
phed In  as  decifive,  is  the  fuffrage  of  all 
antiquity  in  favor  of  bifhops,  as  an  order  of 
men  in  the  church  fuperior  to  presbyters, 
to  whom  belonged  the  powers  of  ordina- 
tion and  government. 

But,  before  I  come  to  this  plea,  it  may 
be  proper  juft  to  obferve;  that  we  are  now 

G  difputing 


58     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

difputing  againft  the  epifcopal  fcheme,  and 
particularly  that  branch  of  it,  the  confining 
ordination  to  bifhops,  not  as  a  mecr  eccle- 
fiaftical  appointment,  [a  prudential  expe- 
dient ;  but  as  an  inftitution  of  Jefns  Chrift, 
and, an  inftitution  of  his  eflentially  connec- 
ted with  the  validity  of  gofpel-adminiftra- 
tions.  And  in  this  view  of  the  matter,  the 
demand,  we  imagine,  is  highly  reasonable, 
"  what  faith  the  fcripture  i  "  It  is  to  little 
purpofe  to  tell  us  of  the  fathers,  and  that  it 
is  uninterruptedly  handed  down  from  them 
as  a  facl,  that  bifhops  werefuperior  to  pref- 
byters,  and  had  the  fole  right  of  ordination. 
This  cannot  make  epifcopal-ordination  nc- 
ceflary  to  the  validity  of  gofpel-ordinances. 
It  muft  be  conftituted  neceflary,  if  fo  at  all, 
by  the  revelations  of  God,  and  in  fair  and 
legible  characters  too.  We  may,  with  all 
reafon,  expert  to  find  both  the  confiitution 
itfelf,  and  it's  neceflity,  delivered  in  the 
(acred  books,  not  by  innuendoes,  far-fetch'd 
arguments,  or  probable  conjectures  ;  but 
with  fo  much  pofitive  clearnefs,  and  exprefs 
affirmation,  as  to  leave  no  reafonable  room 
for  doubt.  And  there  would  now  be  no 
need  of  testimonies  from  the  fathers.  It 
would  indeed  be  difhonorary  to  the  focred 
icriptures,  and  a  grofs  reflection  on  them  as 
not  being  a  perfect  and  fuffkient  rule,  if  we 
might  not,  without  traditionary  helps  from 

the 


Scriptural  and  valid. 


59 


the  elders,  depend  on  them  for  the  eflen- 
tials  of  falvation.  And,  coniidering  the 
fentiments  of  our  Saviour  concerning  the 
traditions  handed  down  to  the  Jews  from 
their  elders,  this  kind  of  tradition  feems  to 
be  one  of  the  lad  things  fuitable  to  be  re- 
curred to,  in  order  to  our  knowing  what 
is  neceflarily  conne&ed  with  true  chriftia- 
nity. 

Having  remark'd  this,  I  come  to  confi- 
der  the  plea  that  is  fo  much  gloried  in,  as 
carrying  with  it  even  demonftration.  And, 
that  it  might  lole  none  of  it's  ftrength,  I 
(hall  give  it  you  in  the   words  of  the  cele- 
brated bifhopHoadly,  who  has  wrote,  per- 
haps, in  as  mafterly  a  way,  upon  this  fide 
of  the  controverfy,  as  any  who  have  hand- 
led it.     In   his  book  entitled,    "  The  rea- 
fonablenefs  of  conformity  to  the  church  of 
England,  "  in   order  to  prove,  "  that  the 
apoftles  left  the  power  of  ordaining  prefby- 
ters  in  the  hands  of  fix'd  bifhops,  "  he  fays,* 
1  This  being  a  matter  of  fad,  part  many 
6  ages  ago,    the   only   method   by  which 
'   we  can  come  to   the  knowledge  of  it,  is 
i  the    teftimony    of  writers  who  liv'd    in 
6   that,  and  the  following  ages.     And  there 
'  is  the  more  reafon  to  rely  upon  their  tefti- 
'  mony  in  this  cafe,  becaufe  this  is  a  matter 
'  ofafimple,  uncompounded  nature,  per- 

G  2  feaiy 

*  Page  326,  327. 


60       ORDINATION    BY  PRESBYTERS 

u  fe&ly  within  their  knowledge;  not  (land* 

**  ing  in  need  of  any  curious  nicencfs  of 
learning,  or  reafoning,  but  level  to  all 
capacities  ;  a  matter  in  which  they 
might  very  eafily  have  been  contradicted, 
had  they  reprefented  it  falfly  ;  and  a  mat?- 
ter  in  which  they  could  not  in  the  firft 

*J  ages  be  biafs'd  by  Intereft.  And  here — - 
I  think  I  may  fay,  that  we  have  as  univerr 
fal  and  as  unanimous  a  teftimony  of  all 
writers,  and  hiftorians  from  the  apoftles 
days,  as  could  reafonably  be  expelled, 
or  defired  :  Every  one  who  fpeaks  of  the 
government  of  the  church  in  any  place, 
witneffing  thatepifcopacy  was  the  fettled 
form ;  and  every  one  who  hath  occaiion 
to  fpeak  of  the  original  of  it,  tracing  it 

+'  up  to  the  apoftles  days,  and  fixing  it  up- 
on their  decree  ;  and  what  is  very  remar- 
kable, no  one  contradicting  this,  either 
of  the  friends  or  enemies  to  chriftianity, 

*c  either  of  the  orthodox,  or  heretical,  thro* 
thole  ages,  in  which  only  inch  aflertions 
concerning  this  matter  of  fad  could  well 
be  difprov'd." — "  Were  there  only  tefti- 
monies  to  be  produc'd,  that  this  was  the 
government  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  it 
would  be  but  reafonable  to  conclude  it 
of  apoftolical  inftitution  ;  it  being  fa 
highly  improbable  that  fo  material  a 
poiac  fhould  be  eftablifhed  without  their 

M  advice 


It 

<« 


a 
a 

ti, 
€6 

u 


ti 
a 
ft 
tt 
it 

it 
i  t 


Scriptural  and  valid.       6i 

M  advice  or  decree,when  we  find  the  chur- 

M  ches  confulting  them  upon  every  occa- 

**  fion,  and  upon   matters   not  of  greater 

"  importance  than  this.  But  when  wc  find 

"  the   fame  perfons  witnefling  not  only 

"  that  the  government  of  the  church  was 

"  epifcopal,  but  that  it  was  of  apoftolical 

f'  inftitution,  and  delivered  down  from  the 

"  beginning  as  fuch,  this  adds  weight  to 

0  the  matter,  and  makes  it  more  undoubt- 

"  ed.      So  that  here   are  two  points  to 

"  which   they  bear  witnefs,  that  this  was 

*  the  government   of  the  church  in  their 

**  days,  and  that  it  was  of  apoftolical  inftt- 

**  tution.     And  in  thefe  there  is  fuch  a  con- 

H  ftancy,  and  unanimity,  that  even  St.  Je- 

"  rome  himfelf  (  who  was  born  near  250 

"  years  after  the  apoftles,  and  is  the  chief 

"  perfon  in  all  that  time  whom  the  prefby- 

**  terians  cite  for  any  purpofe  of  their's  ) 

*'  traces  up  epifcopacy  to  the  very  apoftles* 

"  and  makes  it  of  their  inftitution  ;  and  in 

"  the  very  place  where  he  moft  exalts  pref- 

"  byters,  he  excepts  ordination  as  a  work 

*f  always  peculiar  to  bifhops." —     He  lays, 

a  little  further  on  f,  — -  "  The  teftimony 

"  we  fpeak  of,  is  not  concerning  the  apof- 

"  tolical  inftitution  of  the  exorbitant  power 

■ '  claimed  by  later  bifhops,  or  of  any  ex- 

"  ternal  enfigns  of  worldly  grandeur,  or 
K  riches  appropriated  to  them  :  But  meerlv 

*  of 
t  Page  338. 


62     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

"  of  the  inftitution  of  one  perfon  to  ordain 
"  and  govern  prefbyters,  within  fuch  or 
"  fuch  a  diftrift,  and  according  to  the  de- 
"  fignand  rules  of  chriftianity." — He  adds, 
f  "  All  churches  and  chriftians,  as  far  as 
"  we  know,  feem  to  have  been  agreed  in 
•'  "  this  point,  amidft  all  their  other  diffe- 
"  rences,  as  univerfally  as  can  well  be 
"  imagined.  " 

Had  I  met  with  this  reprefentation  of 
ancient  teftimony  in  a  declamatory  fecond- 
hand  writer,  who  knew  little  himfelf,  and 
only  retailed,  in  a  flourifhing  manner,  what 
he  had  heard  from  this  and  the  other  party- 
zealot,  it  would  not  have  been  furprifing  ; 
but  it  really  was  fo,  to  find  a  truly  great 
and  defervedly  renowned  author  bringing 
in  the  ancient  fathers,  univerfally,  unani- 
moufly,  and  conftantly  affirming  it  to  be 
fad,  and  this  in  all  ages  from  the  apoftles, 
that  "  the  government  of  the  church  was 
epifcopat,"  and  "  of  apoftolical  inftitution  ; " 
yea,  and  that  it  was  "  of  apoftolical  infti- 
tution too,  that  one  perfon  fhould  ordain 
and  govern  prefbyters  within  a  certain  dil- 
trift."  One  would  imagine,  from  this  re- 
prefentation, that,  if  the  writings  of  the 
fathers  were  confulted,  epifcopacy,  both 
the  thing,  and  the  divine  inftitution  of  it, 
would  fo  glaringly   appear  to  have  been 

acknow- 

t  ^gc  339. 


Scriptural  and  valid.        63 

acknowledged  by  all  the  fathers,  in  all  ages 
from  the  beginning,  that  there  would  be 
no  room  left  for  the  leaft  debate  upon  the 
matter. 

And  is  this  the  truth  of  faft  ?    We  fhall 
foon   fee   whether  it  is,  or  no.     In  order 

whereto  let  it  be  obferved. 

A  distinction  ought  always  to  be 
made  between  the  two  firft  centuries,  and 
the  fucceeding  ones  ;  for  the  difference  be- 
tween the  writers  in  thefe  centuries,  as 
witnefTes  in  the  prefent  caufe,  is  both 
obvioufly  and  certainly  very  great.  Per- 
haps, due  attention  has  not  been  given  to 
this  diftinftion  by  the  difputants  on  either 
fide  of  the  queltion  in  debate.  Sir  Peter 
King's  "  account  of  the  primitive  church," 
is,  it  may  be,  as  impartial  an  one  as  any 
extant ;  but  it  would,  as  I  apprehend,  have 
been  lefs  faulty,  and  more  perfect,  if  he 
had  kept  in  his  eye  this  diftinftion  thro'  the 
whole  of  his  work.  Nor  have  any  of  the 
writers  on  our  fide  of  the  difpute,  fo  far  as 
I  have  had  opportunity  to  read  them,  ma- 
naged the  caufe  with  the  advantage  they 
might  have  done,  if  they  had  particularly 
pointed  out  the  difference  between  the  two 
firft  and  following  centuries,  and  made  the 
ufe  of  it  they  might  have  done  to  their 
purpofe.  It 


64       OftDINATIOM  BY  PrESBYTEKS 

It  is  readily  acknowledged,  the   name 
bifhop,  towards  the  clofe  of  the  fecond  cen- 
tury began  to  be  an  appropriated  term  ; 
Signifying  fomething  more  than  the  word 
prefbyter.     In  the  third  century,  and   on- 
wards,   the   appropriation  was  common. 
Bifhop  and  prefbyter  pointed  out  officers  in 
the  church  diftinft  from  each  other  ;  tho' 
to  fay  precifely  what,  and  how  great,  this 
diflindion  was,  will,  I  believe,  be  found  to 
be  exceeding  difficult.    It  was  undoubtedly 
fmall  at  firft.  The  bifhop  was  no  more  than 
"  primus  inter  pares,"  the  "  head-prefby  ter," 
the  "praefes"  of  the  confiftory.    And  it  wras 
by  gradual  fteps  that  he  attained  to  that 
dignity  and  power  with  which  he  was  af- 
terwards veiled.     Thofe   ecclefiaftical  fu- 
periorities  and  inferiorities  which  have,  for 
a  long  time,  been  vifible   in  the  chriftian 
world,  were   unknown  in   the   firft   and 
purefl  ages.     Nor  did  they   at  once  take 
place.     It  was  the  work  of  time.    From 
prime-prefbyters  arofe  city-bifhops  ;  from 
city-bifhops,  diocefan  ones  ;  from  diocefan 
bifhops,  metropolitans  ;  from  metropolitans, 
patriarchs  ;    and  finally,  at  the  top  of  all, 
his  holinefs    the  pope,  claiming   the   cha- 
racter of  universal   head  of  the   church. 
But  to  return  to  the  diflinftion  between 
bifhops  and  presbyters  in  the  centuries  im- 
mediately following  the  fecond.     And  it  is 

own'd, 


Scriptural    and   valid.         6c 

own'd,  there  was  a  diftin&ion  between 
them  ;  but,  at  the  fame  time,  utterly  de- 
nied, that  the  fathers  are  universal,  and 
unanimous,  in  affirming  it  for  fad,  that  it 
was  a  diftin&ion  importing  a  fuperiority  of 
order,  or  that  it  was  of  apoftolical  inllitu- 
tion.  The  learned  profeffor  Jamefon,  in 
his  Cyprianuslfotimus,  is  pofitive  in  decla- 
ring, *  that  even  "  Cyprian  did  not  be- 
lieve the  divine  right  of  epifcopacy  ;  "  and 
that  "  he,  with  his  colleagues,  mod  clearly 
depofe,  that  bifhop  and  presbyter,  are,  by 
Chrift's  mftitutiop,  reciprocally  one  and  the 
fame.  "  More  full  to  our  purpofe  is  what 
I  find  related,  in  Calamy's  defence  of  non- 
conformity,:]: from  the  renowned  Dr.  Ray- 
nolds.  The  account  is,  "  Dr.  Bancroft, 
afterwards  Arch-bifhop  of  Canterbury, 
preaching  at  Paul's  crofs,  told  his  auditory, 
that  Aerius  was  condemned  of  herefy,  with 
the  confent  of  the  univerfal  church,  for 
aflerting  that  there  was  no  difference,  by 
divine  right,  between  a  bifhop  and  a  pref- 
byter  ;  and  that  the  puritans  were  condem- 
ned, by  the  church,  in  Aerius.  The  fa- 
mous Sir  Francis  Knolls,  being  furprifed  at 
fuch  do&rine,  to  which  they  were  not  in 
that  day,  fo  much  ufed  as  we  have  been 
fince,  wrote  to  the  learned  Dr.  Johh  Rey- 
nolds, who  was  univerfally  reckoned  the 
wonder  of  his  age,  to  defire  his  fenfe  about 

H  the 

*  Chap.   14.  J  Page   87,   88, 


66     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

the  matter.  The  Doctor  wrote  him  word 
in  anfwer,  that  even  Bellarmine  the  Jefuti 
owned  the  weaknefs  of  the  anfwer  of  Epi- 
phanius  to  the  argument  of  Aerius  ;  that 
Auftin  efteemed  theaffertion  of  Aerius  he- 
retical, meerly  becaufe  he  found  it  fo  re? 
prefented  by  Epiphanius  ;  and  that  Auftin 
himfelf  owned,  that  there  was  no  difference 
between  abifhop  and  a  presbyter  by  divine 
right.  He  cites  alfo  bifhop  Jewel,  who? 
when  Harding  had  alTerted  the  fame  thing 
as  Dr.  Bancroft,  alledged  againft  him  Chry- 
foftom,  Auftin,  Jerom,  and  Ambrofe.  He 
mentions,  from  Medina,  feveral  other  ai> 
cient  fathers ;  and  further  adds  himfelf, 
Oecumenius,  Anfelm  arch-bifhop  of  Can- 
terbury, another  Anfelm,  Gregory,  and 
Gratian.  "  And  bifhop  StiHingfleet,  who 
-appears  to  have  been  as  well  read  in  the 
fathers  as  any  man  in  his  day,  or  ilnce,  free- 
ly fays,  *  "  I  believe,  upon  the  ftrifteft 
enquiry,  Medina's  judgment  will  prove 
true,  that  Jerom,  Auftin,  Ambrofe,  Sedu-; 
Jius,  Primafius,  Chryfoftom,  Theodoret, 
Thcophylaft,  were  all  of  Aerius' s  judgment, 
as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and  order 
pf  bifhops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive 
church.  "  And  again,  a  little  onwards,  f> 
"  I  do  as  yet  defpair  of  finding  anyone 
fmgle  teftimony  in  all  antiquity,  which 
doth  in  plain  terms  aflert  epifcopacy,  as  it 

was 

*  Iren.  pa£e  276.  \    Page  31. 


Scriptural  and  valid.        67 

was  fettled  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church,  in  the  ages  following  the  apoftles* 
to  be  of  unalterable  divine  right.  "  If  any 
regard  is  to  be  paid  to  the  judgment  of 
thefe  celebrated  writers,  who  had  made  it 
their  bufinefs  to  ttudy  the  fathers,  one 
would  think  there  was  reafon,  at  leaft,  to 
fufpecl,  whether  the  evidence  in  favor  of 
epifcopacy,as  an  apoftolical  inftitution,  is  fo 
univerfal  and  conftant  as  has  been  affirmed. 

But,  leaving  thefe  later  centuries,  let 
us  go  back  to  the  two  firft.  And  we  may, 
with  the  more  pertinency,  do  this,  as  the 
famous  bifhop,  whofe  plea  we  are  conllder- 
ing,  has  faid,  J  "  We  do  not  argue  meerly 
"  from  the  teftimony  of  fo  late  writers  as 
"  thefe  (meaning  Jerom  and  Auftin  )  that 
epifcopacy  is  of  apoftolical  inftitution. 
We  grant  k  doth  not  follow,  St.  Jerom 
thought  fo,  therefore  it  is  fo.  But  wri- 
"  ters  of  all  ages  in  the  church  witnefs,  that 
**  this  was  the  government  in  their  days  ; 
6t  that  it  was  inftituted  by  the  apoftles,and 
"  delivered  down  as  fuch.  All  that  we 
"  produce  St.  Jerom  for  in  this  cafe,  is  that 
"  it  was  in  his  time,  and  that  he  believed 
"  it  to  be  apoftolical,  and  received  it  as 
fuch:  But  without  the  teftimony  cf  the 
ages  before  him,  Ifhould  not  efteem  thisa 
"  fuflicient  argument  that  it  was  really  fo." 

H  z  And 

t  p*£c  349- 


c< 
u 


68     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

An  d  do  the  fathers,  in  the  two  firft  ages, 
witnefs  what  they  are  thus  peremptorily 
faid '  to  do  ?  I  was  at  the  pains,  in  my 
younger  years,  to  read  thefe  fathers,  par- 
ticularly with  a  view  to  this  controverfy, 
and  am  obliged  to  fay,  upon  my  own 
knowledge  of  the  matter,  that  the  above 
reprefentation  is  really  a  miftake,  and  a  very 
great  one  too  ;  which  I  candidly  attribute 
to  inattention,  or  fome  undifcerned  preju^ 
dice  of  mind.  Would  the  time  permit,  I 
could  give  you  the  whole  of  what  is  faid, 
relative  to  the  plea  before  us,  by  Barnabas, 
Hermas,  Poly  carp,  Clement  of  Rome,  Juftin 
Martyr,  Irenasus,  and  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, all  writers  in  the  two  firft  centuries, 
and  fatisfy  you  from  the  very  words  of 
thefe  fathers  themfelves,  that  they  give  no 
fuch  evidence  as  is  here  pretended.  But  ic 
mull:  fuifice  to  fay  at  prefent, 

That,  Ignatius  only  excepted,  the  fa- 
thers, within  the  two  firft  centuries,  united- 
ly concur  in  fpeaking  of  bifhops  and  pref- 
byters  much  in  the  fame  language  with  the 
facred  fcripturcs.  They  never  once  fay, 
either  in  fo  many  words,  or  in  words  from 
whence  it  can  fairly  be  collected,  that  bi- 
fhops  were  an  order  in  the  church  fuperior 
to  that  of  presbyters  ;  they  never  once  fay, 
;hat  ordination  was  the  work  of  bifhops  in 

diilinctioa 


Scriptural  and  valid.         69 

diftin&ion  from  presbyters  ;  they  never 
once  fay,  that  epifcopacy  was  the  govern- 
ment m  the  church,  or  that  it  was  inftitu- 
ted  either  by  Chrift  himfelf,  or  any  of  his 
apoftles  ;  nor  do  they  ever  fay,  that  it  was 
fa  handed  down  to  them  from  the  begin* 
ing.  Far  from  this,  unlefs  it  ftrangely  ilipt 
my  obfervation,  which  I  do  not  in  the 
leaft  fufpect  it  did,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
who  flourifhed  towards  the  clofe  of  the  fe- 
cond  century,  is  the  firft  father  (  Ignatius 
excepted  )  who  ufed  that  mode  of  fpeech, 
"  bifhops,  presbyters  and  deacons. '  And 
the  terms  feem  not  even  then  to  have  loft 
their  promifcuous  ufe  ;  for  this  fame  Cle- 
ment, fpeaking  of  one  under  the  name  of  a 
bifhop,  calls  him,  in  the  fame  fentence, 
the  presbyter.*  Irenseus,  'tis  true,  a  few 
years  before,  once  ufes  that  form  of  expref- 
fion,  ff  bifhops  and  presbyters.  *  His 
words  are,f  "  Paul  called  together  toMile- 
tus  the  bifhops  and  presbyters  of  Ephefus. " 
But,  as  the  learned  Mr.  Jamefon  very  jultly 
cbferves,  J  "  for  his  feeming  here  to  diftin- 
guifh  bifhops  from  presbyters,  this  fcripture 
where  they  got  both  names,  and  which  I- 
renaeus  then  had  in  view,  and  Lis  frequent 
promifcuous  ufing  ofthefe  names,  perfuadc 
me  that  he  only  refpectcd  the  19th  and  28th 

verfes, 

#  Blondelli  Apol.  Seel.  \i.  page  36. 

f  Lib.    III.   cap.  xiv. 

X  "  Nazian.  querela,  "  fevt.  vi.  page  157. 


70     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

verfes,  and  fo  took  bifhop  and  presbyter 
(ynonimically  (  as  the  apoftlePaul  did  )  for 
one  and  the  fame. 

I  made  the  remark,  while  upon  the  ar- 
gument from  fcripture,  that  no  inftance 
was  to  be  met  with  there  of  an  ordination; 
by  any  perfon  under  the  name  of  a  bifhop. 
I  now  add,  neither  have  I  been  able  to  find 
an  inftance  of  ordination  under  the  like 
name,  and  meaning  by  it  a  bifhop  as  diftin- 
guifhed  from  a  prelbyter,  in  any  writer  till 
we  come  to  the  times  when  it  is  owned,  a 
diftin&ion  obtained  between  thefe  officers 
of  the  church.  Epifcoparians  have  fome- 
times,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  called  for  an 
inftance  of  prefbyterian  ordination  for  fome 
hundreds  of  years  after  Chrift.  If  they  will 
be  pleafed  to  favor  us  with  only  one  exam- 
ple of  epifcopai  ordination,  in  their  fenfe 
of  it,  within  the  time  above-defcribed; 
Which  is  a  very  confiderable  fpace ;  longer,* 
counting  from  Chrift,  than  from  the  firft 
fettlement  of  this  country  to  the  prefent 
day,  we  will  take  it  into  coniideration,  and 
give  fo  notable  a  difcovery  all  the  weight 
it  deferves.  In  the  mean  time,  we  hope  to 
be  excufed,  if  we  do  not  believe  it  to  be  a 
faft,  either  univerfally,  or  unanimoufly,  or 
conftantly  handed  down  from  the  days  of 
the  apoftles,  that  fingle  perfons,    meaning 

hereby 


Scriptural  and  valid,       71 

hereby  bifhops  as  diftinguifhed  from  pref- 
byters,  exercifed  the  ordaining  power  with- 
in fuch  and  fuch  diftri&s,  or  that  they 
were  ever  veiled  with  a  right,  by  apoftoli- 
cal  inftitution,  fo  to  do.  We  rather  think, 
there  is  no  juft  reafon  to  affirm  this  to  be 
fa&,upon  the  teftimony  of  any  one  genuine 
writer  whatever,  within  the  limits  we  are 
now  fpeaking  of. 

The  plain  truth  is,  no  more  can  be  col- 
lected from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  till 
toward  the  clofe  of  the  fecond  century,  oc 
the  coming  in  of  the  third,  in  favor  of  epif- 
copacy,  than  from  thefcriptnres  themfelves. 
And  were  it  proper  to  fettle  the  controver- 
fy  by  an  appeal  to  the  general  fuffrage  of 
thefe  writers,  I  fhould  willingly  put  it  onj 
that  iflue  ;  as  being  fully  perfuaded,  that 
the  advantage  would  lie  on  our  fide  of  the 
queftion,  as  much  as  if  it  was  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  fcriptures  only. 

It  is  readily  owned,  the  epiftles  afcribed 
to  Ignatius,  a  truly  primitive  father,  do  as 
certainly,  as  ftrongly,  and  as  conftantly 
diftinguifh  bifhops  from  presbyters,  as  any 
of  the  writings  of  the  third  or  fourth  cen- 
turies. But  this  we  efteem  of  little  weight 
in  the  prefent  caufe,  as  there  is  fo  much 
reafon  to  think,  that  thefe  epiftles  are  not 

his 


?a     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

bis  genuine  works.  If  he  wrote  thefe  epif- 
ties  (whicn,by  the  way,  is  far  from  being  a 
point  beyond  difpute  )  it  is  not  in  the  leaft 
probable,  that  they  came  out  of  his  hands 
as  they  now  appear.  The  Ufferian  and 
Voflian  copies,  the  only  ones  their  great  ad- 
vocate, bifhop  Pearfon,  pretends,  in  his 
"■  Vindicias  Ignatianse,  "  to  defend,  carry  in 
them  too  many,  and  too  notorious,  evi- 
dences of  interpolation  to  induce  a  belief, 
in  any  unprejudiced  mind,  that  it  is  always 
the  true  primitive  Ignatius  that  is  the  wri- 
ter. For  my  own  part,  I  efteem  it  an  eafy 
thing  to  reduce  it  to  an  high  degree  of  mo- 
ral certainty,  that  thefe  epiftles,  even  in 
their  pureft  editions,  contain  fuch  unquef- 
tionable  marks  of  a  later  date  than  the 
times  of  Ignatius,  that  they  ought  never  to 
be  mentioned  in  this,  or  any  other  contro- 
verfy,  unlefs  to  prove  that  religious  cheat 
and  knavery  were  in  practice  fo  far  back 
as  the  days  of  the  fathers.  Inftead  of  going 
into  the  proof  of  what  I  have  now  faid, 
which  would  put  me  upon  trying  your  pa- 
tience beyond  all  reafonable  bounds,  I  fhall 
refer  you  to  the  two  celebrated  French  mi- 
nifters,  Daille  and  L'arrogue,  on  our  fide  of 
the  queftion,  and  the  celebrated  bifhops, 
Beveredge  and  Pearfon  on  the  other  ;  in 
whofe  writings  you  will  find  antiquity  ran- 
fack'd,  and  eyery  thing  faid  upon  the  mat- 
ter 


Scriptural  and  valid.       73 

ter,that  learning  or  good  fenfe  can  fuggeft. 
Read  them  carefully  (they  are  to  be  found 
in  the  College-library)  and  judge  for  your* 
felves. 

I  trust,  I  may  now  fay,  it  has  been 
made  fufficiently  clear,  from  the  pofuive 
evidence  that  has  been  exhibited  in  the  for- 
mer part  of  this  difcourfe,  and  from  its  not 
being  invalidated,  but  rather  ftrcngthened, 
by  the  counter-evidence  we  have  examined 
in  the  latter  part,  that  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation was  not  depofited  in  the  hands  of 
bifhops  as  diftinguifhed  from  presbyters ; 
but  that  bifhops  or  prefbyters,  meaning  by 
thefe  terms  one  and  the  fame  order  of  of- 
ficers, were  veiled  with  power  to  ordain 
in  the  church  of  Chrift  ;  and  confequently 
that  ordination  by  a  council  of  prefbyters, 
as  pra&ifed  by  thefe  churches,  is  valid  to 
all  the  ends  of  the  gofpel-miniftry. 

The  inftitution  of  a  lecture,  on  putpofe 
to  vindicate  the  New-England  churches  in 
this  method  of  ordination,  may,  perhaps, 
be  reprefented  to  their  diiadvantage.  Oc- 
cafion  may  be  taken  herefrom  to  infinuate* 
that  the  method  is  novel  and  peculiar, 
not  praftifed  or  approbated  by  the  other 
reformed  proteftant  churches,  any  mora 
than  by  the  church  of  England. 

I  In 


74-     Ordinationi  by  Presbyters 

In  order  to  guard  againft  fuggcftions  of" 
this  kind,  it  it  may  be  proper  to  let  you 
know,  that  the  proteftant  churches  abroad, 
in  common  with  our's,  far  from  owning- 
the  jus  divinum  of  epifcopacy,  aflert  a  pa- 
rity between  bifh'ops  and  prefbyt.ers,  allow- 
ing the  latter,  equally  with  the  former,  to* 
perform  the  work  of  ordination. 

The  churches  of  this  denomination,  in 
Germany,  fpeak  fully  to  the  point  in  their 
book,  entitled,  "  Liber  concordis,  "  prin- 
ted at  Leipfic  in  the  year  1580,  and  again 
in  1 61 2,  in  which  are  contained  "  the  con- 
feffion  of  Augsburg,  and  the  apology  for 
it,  the  Smalcaldic  articles,  and  Luther's 
greater  and  fmaller  catechifms.  "  One  of 
the  "  Smalcaldic  articles  "  has  thefe  words, 
*  "  'Tis  manifeft  from  the  confeffion  of  all, 
our  ach* Maries  themfelves,  that  this  .power 
[in  the  foregoing  words,  the  power  men* 
tioned  was  that  of."  preaching,  difpenfing 
th  :•  iacrament:y  'x^iUtion,  and  juriidi6Hon,'J 
(i  is \c6rn  i  Ifb  all  that  are  fet  over  the 
c]   ircnc  y   be  .called  paftors, 

RrespyierjS,  or  bifnops.      Jcrom   therefore 

plainly 

■ 

rtn  %mn:um,   ettam  adverfa- 

•  rnunem  p fie  omnibus 

till     ..as    i;i*dijs    cpiic-  porum — 

.  .litutos  tfl" — Jure  divino  r.ul- 

'l  et  paiiorem.  " —   Jainefon's 


Scriptural  and  valid. 


75 


plainly  affirms,  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  bifhop  and  presbyter  ;  but  mat 
every  paftor  was  a  bilhop. — •  Here  Jeroru 
teaches,  that  the  diftindion  of  degrees  be- 
tween a  bifnop,  and  a  presbyter  or  pallor, 
was  only  appointed  by  human  authority. 
And  the  matter  itfelf  declares  no  lefs  ;  for, 
on  bifhop  and  presbyter  is  laid  the  fame  di> 
ty,  and  the  fame  injunction.  And  only  or- 
dination, in  after  times,  made  the 
difference  between  bifhop  and  paftor. — By 
divine  right  there  is  no  difference  between 
biihop  and  paftor.  "  Mr.  Boyle  mentions 
the  following  words  as  further  contained 
in  this  article,  J  "  Since  bifhops  and  pallors 
are  not  different  degrees  by  divine  right, 
'tis  manifeft,  that  ordination,  perlor- 
med  by  a  paftor  in  his  own  church,  is  va- 
lid. "  It  is  remarkable,  the  articles 
compofed  at  Smalcald,  of  which  the  fore- 
going is  one,  were  fubferibed  by  three  elec- 
tors, the  prince  Palatine,  and  the  electors 
of  Saxony  and  Brandenburg  ;  by  forty-five 
dukes,  marqueffes,  counts,  and  barons  ;  by 
the  confuls  and  fenators  of  thirty- five  cities  ; 
by  Luther,  Melancfon,  Bucer,  Fagius,  and 
many  other  noted  divines.  The  number 
of  minifters,  who  figned  thefe  articles,  as 
it  has  been  computed,  was  eight  thoufand.f 

I  2  The 

X  Boyse's  clear  account  of  the  ancient  epifcopacy,  pag.282. 
f  Cal  amy's  "defence  of  moderate  non- conformity,  "pag  90. 


76     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

The  other  proteftant  churches  as  plain* 
ly  a (Feit  the  equality  of  all  pallors,  in  poinf 
of  divine  right  ;  as  appears  from  their 
■•  public  confeffions  of  faith,  "  which  are, 
without  all  doubt,  a  truer  and  more  authen* 
tic  ftandard  of  their  doctrine,  than  the  pri- 
vate fentiments  of  this  or  the  other  particu- 
lar perfon,  however  noted  or  learned.  In 
the  "  confeffion  of  the  churches  of  Helve- 
tia, "  it  is  cxprefsly  faid,  *  one  and  that 
equal  power  and  office  is  given  to  all 
rninifters  in  the  church.  Certainly  from 
the  beginning,  bifhops  or  prefb)  ters  gover- 
ned the  church  with  a  common  care.  None 
fet  himfelf  above  another,  or  ufurped  a 
larger  power  or  dominion  over  his  fellow- 
bifliops. — Neverthelefs,  for  order's  fake,  one 
or  other  of  the  miniiters  called  the  aifembly 
together,  propoied  matters  to  be  confulted 
on  in  the  meeting,  gathered  the  opinions 
of  the  reft,  and  finally  took  care,  as  much 
as  in  him  lay,  to  prevent  confufion.  So 
St.  Peter  is  faid  to  have  done  in  the  afls  of 

the 

*  "  P  at  a  eft  autcm  omnibus  in  ccclefia  miniftris  una  ct 
:equJis  poteflas,  five  funftio.  Certe  ab  initio,  epifcopi  vel 
prelbyteri  ecclefiam  communi  opere  pubernaverunt.  Nullus 
alteri  le  prstutit,  aut  fibi  ampliorcm  poteftatem  dominium- e 
in  co-epifeppos  ufutpavit.  — lnterea  propter  ordirem  fervan- 
c'um,  unns  aut  certus  aliquis  miniftroium  ceetum  convocavit, 
tt  in  ccetu  res  cor.fultnndas  propefuit,  fenteritias  hem  aliorum 
coliegit,  denique  re  qua  oriretur  confulio,  pro  virili  cavit. 
F.xc  legitur  fecHTc.  in  a.flis  apo(lol<  rum,  S.  Ptnus,  qui  tiimerj 
idep  n:c  aliis  fuit  prsripofitus,  nee  poteflate  m^jore  csticiis 
uizdilus-r-'*.      ••  Synt  -^ma  conftfiicsum,"  page  40. 


Scriptural  and  valid. 


77 


the  apoftles,    who  notwithftanding  was 

NOT  SET  OVER  THE  REST,  NOR  VES- 
TED WITH  G  R  E  A  TE  R  power."  This 
confeflion  is  the  more  worthy  of  notice,  as 
it  contains  virtually  the  fenfe  of  moft  of 
the  proteftant  churches,  befides  thofe  we 
have  already  mentioned  ;  for  it  was  fub- 
fcribed,  not  only  by  the  church  of  Helve*- 
tia,  but  by  the  churches  of  Scotland,  Po- 
land, Hungary,  Geneva,  Neocome,  Myll- 
hufium,  &c.  as  is  exprefsly  declared  in 
the  preface  that  introduces  it. 

Consonant  hereto  is  the  confeflion  of 
the  French  church,  prefented  to  Charles 
the  ninth.  Their  thirtieth  article  runs  thus, 
"  We  believe,  that  all  true  paftors,  where- 
cver  they  are  placed,  are  endued  with  e- 
qual  power  under  that  only  head,  the 
chief  and  fole  univerfal  bifhop  :  And  there- 
fore no  chqrqh  ought  to  claim  an  empire 
or  domination  over  any  other  church.  "  * 

The  Belq;ic  confeflion  is  much  the  fame. 
Their  thirty- firft  article  fays,  — •  "  As  con- 
cerning the  minifters  of  the  word  of  God, 

in 


*  "  Credimus  omnes  veros  paftores,  ubicunque 
locorum  collocati  fuerint,  cadem  ct  crqnali  inter  fe  poteftate 
efTe  praeditos  fub  unico  illo  capite,  fummoquc  ct  folo  univerfi 
epifcopo  Jefu  Chrifto  ;  Ac  proinde  nulli  eccleHae  liccre  fibi  in 
ajjum  imperium  aut  dominationem  vendicare.  " 

Syntag.  confef.  p«g.  84. 


78     Ordination  by  Presbyters 
in  whatever  place  they  are,  they  have  all 

the  SAME    POWER     AND    AUTHORITY,    as 

being  all  the  minifters  of  Chrift,  that  only 
uni.erfal  bifhop  and  head  of  the  church. "f 

To  thefe  may  be  added  the  Waldenfes 
and  Albigenfes,  ot  whom  Alphonfus  de 
Caftro  relates,  "  that  they  denied  any  dif- 
ference between  bifhop  and  prefbyter,  and 
herein  differed  nothing  from  Aerius  \  " 
which  alfo  may  be  learnt  from  Thuan,  who 
compares  them  with  "  the  Englifh  nor> 
conformifts.  M  TheWaldenfes  were  in  this, 
as  in  the  reft  of  their  articles,  followed  by 
J.  Hufs,  and  his  adherents,  who  alio  affer- 
ted,  "  there  ought  to  be  no  difference  be- 
tween bifhops  and  prefbyters,  or  among 
priefts.  "  Yea,  fo  universal  hath  this  doc- 
trine,of  the  identity  of  bifhop  and  prefbyter, 
been,  that  it  hath,  all  along,  by  the  Ro- 
'  manifts,  been  reckoned  a  prime  doftrine  of 
Rome's  oppofers.  J 

'Tis  readily  acknowledged,  in  mod  of 
the  proteftant  churches  there  are  ecclefiafti- 
cal  officers,  who  bear  the  ftyle  of  bifhops, 
fuper-intendants,  infpeftors,  or  feniors  ;  as 

may 

f"  Quantum  vero  attinct  divini  verbi  miniftros.ubicunque 
locorum  fiot,  eandem  illi  poteftatem  ct  authoritatem  habent, 
ut  qui  omnes  fint  Chrifti,  unici  illius  cpifcopi  univerfalis,  uni- 
cique  capitis  ecclefiae" — .         Syntag.  confef.  pag.   142. 

X  Jamcfon's  Nazian.  querela,  pag.  96. 


Scriptural  and  valid.        jg 

may  be  feen  in  Stiilingfleet's  "  Irenicum,  " 
where  thefe  churches  are  all  mentioned  by 
name  i  But,  as  that  learned  author  obferves, 
"all  thefe  reformed  churches  acknowledge 
no  fuch  thing  as  a  divine  right  of  epifco- 
pacy,  but  ftifly  maintain  Jerom's  opinion 
of  the  primitive  equality  of  gofpel-mini- 
fters  "  *.  Nor  could  they  confiftently  dp 
any  other  ;  for  they  haye,  at  bottom,  no  o- 
ther  than  prefbyterian  ordination  among 
them.  "  Luther,  Calvin,  Bucer,  Melandlon, 
Bugenhagius,  "  &c.  and  all  the  firft  refor- 
mers and  founders  of  thefe  churches,  who 
ordained  minifters  among  them, were  them- 
felves  presbyters,  and  no  other.  And  tho', 
in  fome  of  thefe  churches,  there  are  mini- 
fters which  are  called  fuper-intendants,  or 
bifhops;  yet  thefe  are  only  "  primi  inter 
pares,"  the  firft  among  equals  ;  not  preten- 
ding to  any  fuperiority  of  orde,r.  Having 
themfelvesno  other  orders  than  what  either 
presbyters  gave  them,  as  were  given  them 
as  presbyters,  they  can  convey  no  other  to 
thofe  they  ordain,  f 

Our 

*  Iren.  p^ge  411. 
f  "  The  difFenung  gentleman's  anfwer  toWhite,"page  45-. 
At  the  bottom  of  this  page,  'tis  added,  "  The  Danifh 
church  is,  at  this  time,  governed  by  bifhops.  But  they  look 
upon  epifcopacy  as  only  an  human  ii  (btution  ;  and  the  flift 
profe(tant  prelates  in  that  kingdom  were  ordained  by  Rurgen- 
hagius,  [he  ordained  no  lefs  than  P  ven  of  the  m  .  t  one  tinje  3 
a  meer  prefby-.-r  ;  "/ho,  by  conftqu-  cc,  01  ii  <orv  y  no 
ocher  than  a  pi efbyecnan  ordination  to  thcu  luc^efTois  ever 
fmce.  " 


80       ORDINATION    BY    pRESBYfERS 

Our  adverfaries  indeed  do  themfelve^ 
"when  they  fpeak  out  their  mind,  freely 
tell  us,  that  "  all  the  tranf-marine  reformed 
churches  are  really  presbyterian. "  Dr. 
Heylin,  upon  this  account,  thro'  a  large 
folio,  befpatters,  with  the  blackeft  of  rail- 
ings and  calumnies,  every  one  of  the  refor- 
med churches  in  particular.  Howel  alfo 
makes  Calvin  "  the  firft  broacher  of  the 
presbyterian  religion."  And  fays, "  Geneva 
lake  fwallowed  up  the  epifcopal  fee  ;  and 
church  lands  wrere  made  fecular,  which  was 
the  white  they  levelled  at.  This  Geneva 
bird  flew  thence  toFrance,  and  hatched  the 
Huguenots,  which  make  about  a  tenth  part 
of  that  people.  It  took  wing  alfo  to  Bohe- 
mia and  Germany,  high  and  low,  as  the 
Palatinate,the  land  of  Hefle,  and  the  confe- 
derate provinces  of  the  States  of  Holland. "f 

If,  to  the  proteftant  churches  that  have 
been  mentioned, we  add  the  congregational 
diflenting  brethren  in  England,  who,  at 
the  revolution,  are  fuppofed  to  have  made 
nearly  two  thoufand  churches  ;  the  large 
body  of  presbyterian  diflenters  in  the  north 
of  Ireland  ;  as  alfo  the  difTenters  of  other 
denominations  in  Britain,  the  united  pro- 
vinces, and  other  parts  of  Europe,  who  are 
all  of  one  mind  as  to  the  right  of  presbyters 
to  ordain  :  — ■  I  fay,  if  we  add  all  thefe  to- 
gether, 

\  Jamefoa's  Nazian.  querela,  pag.  95. 


Scriptural  and  valid.         8i 

gether,  they  will  make  a  number  vaftly 
greater  than  that  which  conftitutes  the  e- 
ptfcopal  church  of  England,  fhould  we  take 
into  the  computation  every  member  of  this 
church.  But  fhould  we  leave  out  of  the 
reckoning  thofe,  who  live  in  love  and  har- 
mony with  diffenters,  efteeming  their  ordi- 
nations valid,  tho'  not  according  to  the 
eftablifhed  form,  and  bring  fuch  only  into 
the  account,  who  are  fo  ftrenuous  for  the 
jus  divinum  of  epifcopacy  as  to  nullify  all 
ordinations,  unlets  by  a  bifhop,  in  their 
fenfe  of  the  word,  they  will  fink  into  a 
number  too  inconfiderable  to  be  mentioned 
in  companion  with  the  many,  who  differ 
from  them,  in  their  fentiments.  Not  that  we 
rely  upon  numbers.  The  fcriptures  only 
can  determine,  what  is  truth  in  the  prefent 
debate.  But  flill,  it  is  a  fatisfaclion  to  us, 
that  our  ordinations  are  fuch  as  agree  with 
the  declared  fentiments  of  almoft  the  whole 
proteftant  world.  And  our  fatisfaclion  is 
the  greater,  as  we  have  fo  much  reafon  to 
believe,  that  they  agree  with  the  principles 
even  of  the  church  of  England  itfelf,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  reformation,  and  for  fome 
time  afterwards. 

The  generality  of  it's  pious  and  learned 
divine^  in  thofe  days,  whether  of  higher 
or   lower  dignity,  were  far  from  infilling 

K  on 


82       OltDI NATION    BY  PRESBYTERS 

on  the  divine  right!  of  epifcopacy  ;  as 
may  be  feen  in  quotations,  from  their 
writings  to  this  purpofe,  by  the  celebrated 
Stillingfleet.  *  And  it  is  worthy  of 
of  fpecial  notice  here,  in  Henry  the  eighth's 
time,  when  things  were  tending  to  a  refor- 
mation, the  arcl>bifhops,  bifliops,  arch- 
deacons, and  clergy  of  England,  in  their 
book  intitled,  "  the  inftru&ion  of  a  chri- 
ftian  man,  "  fubferibed  with  all  their  hands 
and  dedicated  to  the  king  an.  1537  ;  and 
king  Henry  himfelf,  in  his  book  ffiled,  "  a 
ncceffary  erudition  for  anyebriftian  man," 
approved  by  both  houfes  of  parliament, 
prefaced  with  his  own  epiftle,  and  publifhed 
by  his  command,  exprefsly  refolve,  "  that 
priefts  and  bifhops  by  God's  law  are  one 
and  the  fame,  and  that  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation and  excommunication  belongs  e- 
qually  to  them  both."  f  Herewith,  it  may 
be  further  noted,  agrees  the  manufcripf 
mentioned  by  bifhop  Stillingfleet,  in  which 
archbifhop  Cranmer,  one  of  the  afleflabiy, 
called  together  by  the  fpecial  command 
of  king  Edward  fixth,  in  anfwer  to  his 
queftions,  has  thefe  words,  +  "  bifliops 
and  prieits  were  at  one  time,  and  were  not 
two  things,  but  one  office  in  the  beginning 
ofLChrift's  religion.''  The  bifhop  of  Afaph, 
Therleby,  Redman,   and  Cox  were  all  of 

and 

*  Irenicum,  pag.   394,  and  onwards'. 
f  Calamy's  "  defence  of  moderate  no^-conformity/'p^o,  91. 

X  Irenicum,  pige  392. 


Scriptural    and   valid.         83 

the  fame  opinion  with  the  arch-biftiop  ; 
and  the  two  latter  exprefsly  cite  the  opinion 
of  Jerom  with  approbation.  Upon  which 
the  learned  writer,  to  whom  we  are  in- 
debted, for  this  account  obferves,  *  "  Thus 
we  fee  by  the  teftimony  chiefly  of  him, 
who  was  inftrumental  in  our  reformation, 
that  he  owned  not  epifcopacy,  as  a  diftinft 
order  from  prefbytery,  of  divine  right,  but 
only  a  prudential  conftitution  of  the  civil 
magistrate  for  the  better  governing  in  the 
church.  "  This  fame  arch-bifhopCranmer 
was  "  the  firft  of  fix  and  forty,  who,  in 
the  time  of  king  Henry  the  eighth,  affir- 
med (in  a  book  called  "  the  bifhop's  book  " 
to  be  ieen  in  "  Fox's  martyrology  "  )  that 
K  the  difference  of  biihops  and  presbyters 
was  a  device  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and 
not  mentioned  in  the  fcripture*  "  J 

It  is  indeed  beyond  difpute,  that  the  e- 
pifcopal  form  of  government  was  fettled,  at 
the  reformation,  upon  a  very  different  foot 
from  that  of  a  jus  divinum.  How  elfe  can 
it  be  accounted  for,  that  not  only  in  king 
Henry  the  eighth's  reign,  but  likewiie  in 
king  Edward  the  fixth's,  the  biihops  took 
out  commiffions  from  the  crown,  by  which 
they  were  to  hold  their  bifhopricks  only 
during  the  king's  pleafure,  and    were  im- 

K  2  powered 

*  Stillingfleetj  in  his  Jrenicpm,   page  393. 

£  J,  Owen's  "  plea  for  fcripture-ordination,  "  pa^e  i|^. 


84     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

powered  in  the  king's  name,  as  his  dela* 
gates,  to  perform  all  the  parts  of  the  epis- 
copal function  ?  Archbifhop  Cranmer,  that 
excellent  and  holy  martyr,  let  an  example 
to  the  reft  in  taking  out  one  of  them.  * 
This  method  of  afting  is  certainly  better 
adjufted  to  a  conftitution,  founded  on  poli- 
cy, than  divine  right.  Nay,  as  far  from 
the  beginning  of  the  reformation  as  the 
days  of  queen  Elifabeth,  in  the  articles  of 
religion  agreed  upon,  the  Englifh  form  of 
church-government  was  only  determined 
"  to  be  agreeable  to  God's  word  ;  "  which 
f  had  been  a  very  low  and  diminishing  ex- 
preffion,  had  they  looked  on  it  as  abfolute- 
ly  prefcribed  in  fcripture,as  the  only  necef? 
fary  form  to  be  obferved  in  the  church, 

Th  e  truth  is,  fays  Mr.  Owen,  this  notion 
of  the  jus  divinum  of  epifcopacy,  as  a  fu- 
perior  order,  wag,  fnrft  promoted  in  the 
church  of  England  by  arch-bifhop  Laud. 
Dr.  Holland, the  king's  profeffor  of  divinity 
in  Oxon,  was  much  offended  with  him, 
for  aflerting  it  in  a  difputation  for  his  de- 
grees. He  checked  him  publicly,  and  told 
him,  "  he  went  about  to  make  a  divifion 
between  the  Englifh;  and  the  other  refor- 
med churches.  "  J 

ANn 

*  Burnet's  abridg.  of  the  hill,  of  the  reform.  Vol. II.  p.  7. 
\  Irenicum,   page   393,    394. 
%  "  Pica  fvt  fcripture-ordiBatioD,  "  page  115. 


Scriptural  and  valid.       85 

And  it  was  in  this  archbifhop's  time, 
that  the  point  of  re-ordination  began  to  be 
urged.  Through  his  influence,  as  Mr.  Prin 
tells  us,  *  bifhopHall  re-ordained  Mr.  John 
Dury,  a  minifter  of  the  reformed  church. 
But  the  old  church  of  England  did  not  re- 
quire or  pra£tife  re-ordination.  In  king 
Edward  the  fixth's  time,  PeterMartyr,  Mar- 
tin Bucer,  and  P.  Fagius  had  ecclefiaftical 
preferments  in  the  church  of  England  with- 
out re-ordination. f  Mr.  WilliamWhiting- 
ham  was  made  dean  of  Durham,  about 
1563  ;  tho'  ordained  by  prefbyters  only.  J 
In  like  manner,  Mr.  Travers,  ordained  by 
a  prefbyter  beyond  fea,  was  feven  years 
lecturer  at  the  temple,  and  had  the  bifhop 
of  London's  letter  for  it.  §  And  even  ia 
the  reign  of  king  James  the  firft,  the  vali- 
dity of  ordination  by  prefbyters  was  not  fet 
afide  ;  as  appears  from  the  cafe  of  the  three 
prefbyters  that  were  confecrated  bifhops  for 
Scotland  at  London.  Before  their  confe- 
cration,  Dr.Andrews,  bifhop  of  Ely,  moved 
the  queftion,  "  whether  they  fhould  not 
be  firll  epifcopally  ordained  prefbyters, 
that  they  might  be  capable  of  being  ad- 
mitted into  the  order  of  bifhops  ?  "  Upon 
which  arch-bifhop  Bancroft  (  a  moll  rigid 
affertor  of  epifcopacy  )  anfwered,  "  there 

was 


*  "  Plea  for  fcripture-ordination,  "  page  117. 

f  Ibid  page  118.     J  Ibid  page  121.     §  Ibid  page  f22. 


§6     Ordination  by  Presbyters 


was  no  need  of  it,  fince  ordination  by  pref- 
byters  was  valid  '  The  bifhop  of  Ely 
yeilded  ;  and  without  repeating  their  or- 
dination as  prefbyters,  they  were  confecra- 
ted  bifliops.  * 

How  far  this  practice,  in  the  epifcopal 
church,  at  home,  inthofedays,  would  be 
countenanced  at  prefent,  I  don't  pretend  to 
determine  ;  but  thus  much  has  been  faid 
by  your  highly  efteemed  divinity-profeflbr, 
upon  a  proper  occafion  ;  whofe  words  are 
well  worth  tranfcribing  here,  **  I  cannot 
learn,  whether  there  has  been  even  in 
England,  to  this  very  day,  properly  any 
public  and  exprefs  aflertion  of  the  "  di- 
vine right  "  of  prelacy,  either  by  parlia- 
ment, or  convocation.  I  think  no  fuch 
thing  can  be  found  in  the  thirty-nine  ar- 
ticles, or  in  the  homilies,  or  in  the  form 
of  ordination,  or  in  the  common  prayer- 
book,  &c.  Unlefs  it  may  be  thought  con- 
tained in  the  preface  to  the  book  of  ordi- 
nation, where  there  is  a  hint  that  feems 
to  carry  fuch  an  afpeft  ;  but,  I  believe, 
will  appear  too  flender  a  foundation  to 
build  upon,  in  the  prefent  cafe  ;  efpecial- 
ly  if  we  remember  who  were  the  chief 
compilers  of  that  book  ;  and  what  rea- 
fon  we  have  to  conclude,  they  were  of 
the  judgment,  that"  priefts  and  bifliops 

"  are, 

*  Pierce's  vindication,  part  I.  page  167. 


u 


Scriptural  and  valid,       87 

are,  by  God's  law,  one  and  the  fame  "  ; 
and  that  the  epifcopal  dignity  is  rather 
by  cuftoin,  than  by  divine  institution."  * 


What  has  been  offered  will,  I  believe, 
be  tho't  fufficent  to  make  it  evident,  that 
ordination  by  presbyters  is  no  new  thing 
under  the  fun,  a  Angularity  peculiar  to  the 
New-England  churches;  flnce  we  have 
feen  it  approved  by  fo  many  of  the  prote- 
ctant reformed  churches*  and  by  the  church 
of  England  itfelf,  at  leaft  in  its  firft  protec- 
tant and  reformed  ftate,and  for  a  confidera- 
ble  time  afterwards.  And  had  there  been 
an  eitablifhment,  in  thofe  days,  putting  the 
power  of  ordination  into  the  hands  of  prel- 
byters,  it  would  have  been,  according  to 
the  then  general  opinion,  as  agreeable  to 
fcripture,as  that  which  put  it  into  the  hands 
of  bifhops.  Poffibly,  the  latter  would  not 
have  been  the  eftablifhment,  had  it  not 
been  for  ecclefiaftical  dignities  and  reve- 
nues;  which  enter  not  into  the  jusdivinum 
of  the  thing. 

I  sh  a  ll  now  put  an  end  to  the  trial  of 
your  patience,  by  fpeaking  a  few  words  to 
the  young  gentlemen  of  the  college,  who 
are  under  tuition  in  order  to  their  being 
formed  for  ufefulnefs,  when  they  go  out 
into  the  world. 

We 

*  "  Sober  remarks,  "  psgc  n. 


88     Ordination  by  Presbyters 

We  have  fuch  a  queftion  as  that  in  the 
prophefies  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  "  Hath 
a  nation  changed  their  gods,  which  yet  are 
no  gods  ?  "  And  it  beautifully  reprefents 
the  flrength  of  a  people's  attachment  to 
the  religious  fentiments  and  practices  of 
their  fore-fathers,  the  difficulty  with  which 
they  are  wrought  upon  to  depart  from 
them.  Even  the  nations,  who  have  been 
taught  by  their  anceftors,  to  worfhip  idol- 
gods,  which,  in  reality,  are  no  gods,  will 
not  eafily  change  the  objeft  of  their  devoti- 
on. 'Tis  not,  it  is  owned,  a  fufficient  plea 
in  favor  of  any  religious  principles,  or 
mode  of  worfhip,  that  they  are  fuch  as 
were  handed  down  to  us  from  our  fathers. 
They  may,  notwithstanding,  be  fuperltiti- 
ous,  abfurd,  and  finful.  And  fhould  this 
be  the  cafe,  filial  reverence  towards  the  fa- 
ther of  our  fpirits  fhould  take  place  of  the 
reverence  due  to  the  fathers  of  our  fiefh. 
But  fhould  they,  on  the  other  hand,  be 
confonant  to  the  dictates  of  uncorrupted 
reafon,  and  the  truth  of  revelation,  'twould 
be  ftrange,  if  pofterity  fhould  defert  them  ; 
efpecially,  if,  inftead  of  adhereing  to  them, 
they  fhould  go  back  to  thofe  their  progeni- 
tors had  renounced,  and  were  really  right 
in  having  fo  done.  This,  if  I  millake  not, 
is  a  thought  well  worthy  of  the  attention  of 
our  fons,  who    are  fcnt  to  this  collegiate- 

fchool, 


Scriptural  and  valid,        89 

fchool  to  be  fitted  for  public  fervice.  We 
don't  advife  you  to  hold  fa  ft  the  religion  of 
your  country,  meerly  becaufe  it  is  the 
religion  of  your,  fathers.  This  would  be  to 
act  below  your  dignity  as  intelligent  and 
moral  agents.  But  ftill  it  deferves,  on  this 
account,  your  ferious  examination.  And 
we  would  exhort  you  to  the  greateft  care 
and  diligence  in  ftudying  the  reafons  upon 
which  the  religion  you  have  been  educated 
in  is  grounded  ;  and,  in  this  way,  we  doubt 
not  but  you  will,  and  upon  the  foot  ofjuft 
and  folid  conviction,  be  fir-mly  attached  to 
it.  We  would  particularly  recommend  it 
to  you  thoroughly  to  enquire  into  the  rea- 
fons of  that  "  mode  of  worfhip,  "  and 
"  form  of  church  order,  "  which  your  pro- 
genitors left  every  thing  that  was  dear  to 
them,  in  their  native  land,  that  they  might 
enjoy  themfelves  in  this  place  of  retreat, 
and  tranfmit  to  their  pofterity  :  Efpecially 
would  we  recommend  this  to  thofe  among 
you,  who  are  defigned  for  the  miniftry ; 
and  the  more  exact  and  critical  you  are  in 
your  enquiries  upon  this  head,  the  lefs  will 
be  our  concern  as  to  the  event  ;  being  ful- 
ly fatisfied,  you  will  find  abundant  reafon, 
with  all  freedom,  to  join  in  communion 
with  the  New-England  churches,  and  to 
fettle  in  them  as  paftors,  in  the  method  of 
inveftiture  common  among  us,  mould  you 
be  called  thereto  in  the  providence  of  God. 

L  We 


90     Ordination  by  Preobyters 

We  ad  vile  you  all,  our  beloved  fons,  to 
make  the  wifeit  and  bell:  ufe  of  the  rich 
advantages  you  are  here  favoured  with,  to 
lay  the  foundation  for  fuch  acquirements 
in  learning  as  will  make  you  eminent 
bleflings  to  the  world,  in  the  various  fta- 
tions  of  life,  when  you  go  from  hence. 
'Tis  pity  any  of  you  fhould  mifimprove  the 
valuable  price  that  is  put  into  your  hands ; 
a  thoufand  pities  you  fhould  idle  away 
your  time,  much  more  that  you  fhould 
mifpend  it  in  needlefs  diverfion,  in  vain 
company,  or,  what  is  vaftly  worfe,  in  the 
purfuit  of  thofe  follies,  by  which  young 
men  are  too  apt  to  be  drawn  alide  and  en- 
ticed. 

Above  all,  we  advife  and  befeech  you 
to  cultivate  in  your  minds  a  ferious  fenie  of 
the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  Chritt.  Reft  not  fatisfied  with  any  at- 
tainments, till  you  have  fecured  thejuftifi- 
cation  of  life,  the  falsification  of  the  fpi- 
rit,  and  the  adoption  of  children.  You 
may  then  live  joyfully,  and  you  will  die 
fafely.  The  great  God  will  be  the  guide 
of  your  youth,  your  guide  thro'  the  world, 
your  guide  thro'  death,  and  your  portion 
forever.  Amen. 

Appendix. 


(9*  ) 


Appendix, 


Giving  a  brief  hiftorical  account  of  the 
epiftles  afcribed  to  Ignatius  ;  and 
exhibiting  fome  of  the  many  reafons, 
why  they  ought  not  to  be  depended  on 
as  his  uncorrupted  works. 


IF  we  form  our  judgment  of  Ignatius  from  the 
accounts  that  are  given  of  him  by  fome  mo- 
dern authors,  we  mud  conceive  of  him  as 
first  among  the  oriental  worthies,  not  only  in 
ecclefiaftical  dignity,  but  in  piety,  learning,  and 
every  other  endowment,  whether  natural  or  fpiri- 
tual.  And,  poffibly,  fuch  fentiments  concerning 
him  may  be  juft:  ;  tho'  there  is  no  way  in  which, 
at  prefent,  we  can  know  them  to  be  fo.  The  fa- 
thers, who  lived  in  the  two  or  three  flrfl:  centuries, 
fay  but  little  about  him.  They  don't  fo  much  as 
tell  us,  where  he  was  born,  how  educated,  when 
brought  over  to  the  chriftian  faith,  or  by  the  inftru- 
mentality  of  what  perfons  or  means.  They  have 
indeed  left  nothing  upon  record,  fave  the  manner 
of  his  going  out  of  the  world,  from  whence  his 
character,  as  diftinguimed  from  that  of  others  of 
the  fame  age,  can  be  particularly  drawn. 

L    2  He 


92  Appendix. 

He  is  fpoken  of,  In  after-time?,  as  bifhcp  of 
Antioch.  *  But  it  would  lead  us  into  wrong  tho'ts 
of  this  ftile,  fhould  we  take  our  idea  of  it  from  that 
fuperiority  to  which  bifhops  were  then  exalted. 
*Tis  probable,  the  fathers,  who  call  him  bifhop, 
efteemed  him  fuch  in  the  fenfe  the  word  was  under  - 
flood  in  their  day  ;  but  as  the  fenfe  of  this  word 
was  diflerent  then  from  what  it  was  in  the  age  in 
which  Ignatius  flourifhed,  they  might  take  more 
into  it's  meaning,  than  it  at  firft  intended.  Prime- 
paftor,  head-prefbyter,  is  the  moil  that  was  meant 
by  his  being  bifhop  of  Antioch,  at  the  time  when 
he  fuftained  this  relation  to  that  church. 

If  there  is  no  room  to  queftion  his  dying  a  mar- 
tyr, the  manner  and  circumflances  of  the  facr,  as 
they  are  related  in  "  the  acts  of  his  martyrdom,  " 
may  reafonably  be  difputed.  The  (lory  of  Trajan's 
fending  him  to  Rome,  after  his  condemnation  at 
Antioch,  that  he  "  might  be  thrown  to  wild  beafts,  '* 
does  not  feem,  however  defended  with  his  epiftlts, 
to  be  any  of  the  mod  probable.  u  For  wherefore 
fhould  Ignatius  of  all  others  be  brought  to  Rome 
to  fuffer,  when  the  "  Proconfuls,"  and  the"  Prse- 
fides  provinciarum,  "  did  every  where,  in  time  of 
perfecution,  execute  their  power  in  punifhing  chri- 
ftians  at  their  own  tribunals,  without  fending  them 

fo 

*  Origenj  a  writer  in  the  third  century,  is  the  firft  that 
mentions  him  under  this  charter.  He  is  herein  followed 
by  the  fucceeding  fathers:  Tho-  they  dirkr  in  the  pkce  they 
pjve  him  in  the  line  of  fucceflion  ;  fonie  putting  Euodius  be- 
fore him,  and  others  Ignatius  next  to  the  apoflle  Fetcr,  or 
Paul,  or  both.  This  makes  a  difficulty  not  unlike  to  that  of 
Cement's  fucceflion  in  the  fee  of  Rome.  The  epifccparisns 
takediifercnt  methods  to  folve  it  ;  which  it  is  not  my  bufinefs, 
ut  prefent,  to  examine. 


Appendix.  93 

fo  long  a  journey  to  Rome,  to  be  martyr*  d  there. 
Aid  how  came  Ignatius  to  make  fo  many,  and  fuch 
ttrange,  excurfions  as  he  did,  by  the  ftory,    if  the  • 
foldiers  that  were  his  guard  were  fo  cruel  to  him,  as 
he  complains  they  were."  * 

• 

But  however  it  might  be  as  to  circumftances, 
the  thing  itfelf,  his  dying  for  the  fake  of  Chrift,  is 
not  denied  •,  tho'  the  year  ©f  his  martyrdom  can- 
not be  certainly  nVd.  Bafnage  ranks  it  among  the 
obfcurities  of  chronology .+  Bifhop  Pearfon,  bifhop 
Loyd,  Pagi,  LeClerc  and  Fabricius  place  it  A.  D. 
115  or  116.  But  Du  Pin,  Tillemont,  and  Dr. 
Ca^e,  in  the  ioth  of  Trajan,  107.  Perhaps,  this 
lad  period  is  by  far  the  more  probable. 

As  to  the  epiftles  that  have  been  afcribed  to  this 
primitive  father,  and  given  rife  to  fo  much  difpute 
in  the  proteftant  world,  the  mod  perfect  account  of 
them,  I  have  been  able  to  collect,  is  briefly  this. 

The  firft  edition  of  them  came  out  in  the  year 
1494  or  5  •,  containing  only  three  latin  epiftles,  one 
to  "  the  VirginMary, "  the  other  two  to  "  St. John." 
A.  D.  1497  or  8»  Faber  Stapulenfis  publifhed  ele- 
ven more  latin  epiftles,  which  were  feveral  times 
reprinted  at  Stratfburg,  and  once  at  Bafil.  Cham- 
perius  afterwards  impreffed  the  above  three  and 
eleven  epiftles,  with  the  addition  of  another  "  ad 
Mariam  Caftabolitam.  "  This  was  done  at  Cologn 
in  1536,  and  made  in  all  fifteen  epiftles.  They 
wer^  as  yet  extant  only  in  latin,  and  thus  they  re- 
mained, in  ftill  repeated  impreffions,  till  1557, 
when  Pacasus  printed  them  in  greek,  with  the  latin 
tranflation  of  Perionius.    The  following  yearGefner 

publifhed 

*  "  Iren."  pag.  298.     f  Anna!.  107.  5  vi. 


94  Appendix, 

publifhed  them  in  greek  likewife,  with  the  verfion 
of  Brunnerus.  This  Gtfner  aflumed  the  honor  of 
being  the  firft,  who  had  made  thefe  epiftles  public 
in  greek.  But  Pacasus  is  allowed,  both  by  DuPin, 
and  bimop  Pearfon,  to  have  been  the  firft  editor 
of  them  in  this  language.  [  N.  B.  Thefe  greek 
editions  contain  only  twelve  of  the  fifteen  epiftles.  ] 
In  the  year  1608,  the  edition  of  Meftrsus  came 
forth;  and  finally  that  of  Vedelius  in  1623,  with 
large  commentaries. 

This  was  the  {late  of  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles,  " 
when  arch-bifhop  Ufher  firft  law  them.  Upon 
reading  them,  he  took  notice,  that  three  ancient 
Englifh  divines  *  had  formerly  quoted  a  paiTage 
from  them  in  the  very  fame  words,  in  which  it  had 
been  quoted  by  Theodoret,  which  words  were  not 
to  be  found  in  the  prefent  editions,  either  greek  or 
latin  ;  and  from  hence  he  concluded,  there  muft  be 
fome  manufcript  copy  of  thefe  epiftles  in  England. 
He  made  diiigent  fearch,  and  at  length  found  two 
copies,  one  at  Cambridge  in  the  library  of  Caius 
college,  the  other  in  the  private  library  of  bifhop 
Montague  •,  containing  an  ancient  verfion  different 
from  the  vulgar.  He  compared  it  with  the  palTages 
cited  by  the  fathers,  and,  finding  a  good  agree- 
ment between  them,  tho't  fit  to  put  out  an  edition 
of  "  the  Ignatian  epiftles,  "  from  this  verfion  ; 
which  was  printed  in  1644.  Not  long  after  this, 
the  learnedVolTius  found,  in  the  duke  of  Tufcany's 
library  at  Florence,  a  greek  manufcript,  containing 
fix  of  thefe  epiftles,  fuppofed  to  be  the  fame  that 
are  mentioned   by  Eufebius    and  Jerom  ;    which, 

agreeing 

*  Wodeford,  Robert  Lincolnienfis,   and  Tiffington. 
€t  Hammond's  anfw.  to  animadver.  on  his  defence,"  pag.50 


Appendix. 


95 


agreeing  with  arch-bifhop  Ufher's  copies,  he  pub- 
limed  at  Amfterdam  in  1646,  with  the  addition  of 
a  feventh,  that  to  "  the  Romans,  "  much  amended 
from  the  latin  verfion.  This  laft  epiftle,  in  1684, 
was  publifhed  at  Paris,  by  Mr.  Ruinart,  from  a 

fuppofed  uninterpolated  copy. 

1 

From  this  account  of  the  epiftles  that  go  under 
the  name  of  Ignatius,  'tis  obvious  to  divide  them 
into  three  clafles. 

The  firft  contains  thofe  three  that  are  extant 
only  in  latin,  infcribed  to  "  the  Virgin  Mary,  " 
and  "  St.  John."  But  they  are  of  fo  little  impor- 
tance, that  learned  men  fcarce  think  it  worth  while 
to  be  at  the  pains  to  prove  them  fpurious. 

The  fecond  comprehends  the  epiftles  that  are 
printed  in  greek,  but  not  mentioned  by  Eufebius, 
or  Jerom.  And  thefe  are  five  in  number.  The 
firft,  to  "  Mary  CalTabolita  •,  "  the  fecond,  to 
"  the  inhabitants  of  Tarfus  •,  "  the  third,  to  "  the 
Antiochians  ; "  the  fourth,  to  "  Hero  the  deacon 
of  Antioeh  •,  "  the  fifth,  to  "  the  Phillippians.  " 
Bellarmine,  Baronius,  PafTevin,  and  a  few  others, 
give  credit  to  thefe  epiftles  as  the  real  works  of  Ig- 
natius ;  but  they  are  herein  oppofed  by  almoft  the 
whole  body,  efpecially,  of  proteftant  writers,  who 
look  upon  them  to  be  evidently  fuppofitkious. 

In  the  third  clafs  are  comprifed  the  feven  epiftles, 
which  are  fuppofed  to  be  mentioned  by  Eufebius 
and  Jerom  *,  which  are  as  Tollow.  The  firft,  to 
•*  the  Ephtfians  •,  the  fecond,  to  "  the  Magnefians ;" 
the  third,  to  "  the  Trallians  s   "    the  fourth,  to 

"  the 


96 


Appendix. 


"  the  Romans  ; "  the  fifth,  to  "  the  Philadelphia 
ans " ;  the  fixth,  to  "  theSmyrnseans "  -,  the  feventh, 
"  to  Polycarp. "  It  may  be  obferved  here,  arch* 
bifhop  Ufher,  and  others  after  him,  reject  this  lad  j 
looking  upon  the  fix  former  as  the  only  ones  com- 
memorated by  Eufebius  :  Tho'  there  are  thofe,  on 
the  contrary,  who,  perhaps  not  with  lb  much  rea- 
fon,  conclude  he  takes  notice  of  the  whole  feven. 

As  for  the  feven  greek  epiftles,  in  this  laft  clafs, 
they  may  be  confidered  as  extant  in  the  editions  of 
them  before,  or  fince,  the  days  of  Ufher  and  Voffius. 

In  the  former  confederation  of  them,  they  are 
fliled  "  the  larger  epiftles,  "  and  generally  dif- 
carded  as  unworthy  of  fo  primitive  a  father  as  Ig- 
natius. Calvin,  the  Century- writers,  Whittaker, 
Parker,  Scultet,  Rivet,  and  others,  always  de- 
clared this  to  be  their  opinion  of  them  :  Tho*  the 
advocates  for  prelacy,  iuch  as  Whitgift,  Bilfon, 
Dounam,  Heylyn,  Taylor,  and  others,  profeffed  a 
belief  cf  them  as  truly  genuine.  And  as  fuch  they 
were,  in  thofe  days,  appealed  to,  in  the  caufe-of 
epifcopacy,  with  as  much  zeal  and  frequency  as 
they  have  been  fince.  But  thefe  "  larger  epiftles  " 
are  now,  I  may  fay,  univerlally  given  up  as  inca- 
pable of  defence.  The  learned  bifhop  Pearfon 
freely  owns,  that  they  are  corrupted  and  interpo- 
lated :  And  tho'  he  commends  the  induftry  of 
Vedelius  in  what  he  has  done  to  diftinguifh  between 
what  is  genuine,  and  interpolated,  in  them  ;  yet  he 
thinks,  at  the  fame  time,  that  he  has  not  fufficiently 
done  it  ;  and,  in  a  word,  does  not  undertake  their 
defence,  in  thefe  editions  of  them. 

These 


Appendix. 


97 


These  epiftles,  confidered  in  the  latter  view,  as 
publifhed  from  the  "  Cantabrigian  "  and  "  Flo- 
rentine copies,  are  called  the  "  fhorter  ones,  " 
and  reprefented  by  the  epifcoparians  to  be  the  un- 
corrupted  works  of  Ignatius  •,  and,  as  fuch,  we  are 
turned  to  them,  upon  all  occafions,  as  containing 
full  evidence  of  the  fuperiority  of  bifhops  to  pref- 
byters  in  order  and  power. 

Upon  which,  I  can't  but  put  you  upon  minding 
the  conduct  of,   at  leaft,  fome  of  our   opponents. 
The  "  larger  epiftles  "  of  Ignatius  they  once  ear- 
neftly  contended  for  againft  all  that  oppofed  them, 
and  conftantly  repaired  to  them  as  the  great  fupporc 
of  their  caufe.     But  now  they  are  willing  to  throw 
them  by   as  ufelefs  -,    the  "  fhorter  editions  "  of 
Ufher  and  Vofiius  being  the  only  ones  to  be  de- 
pended on.     They  could  not   be  prevailed   with, 
by  any  methods  of  reafoning,  to  give  up  Ignatius 
in  the  "  former  editions,  "  till  they  had  got  others, 
from  other  copies,  to  fupply  their  place.     And  now 
they  readily    fee  the  force  of  the  arguments,  they 
before  efteemed  as  nothing  better  than  meer  cavils. 
It  certainly  looks  as  tho'  they  imagined  their  caufe 
flood  in   abfolute  need  of  Ignatius,  and  were  will- 
ing to  part  with  him  in  "  former  editions,  "  only 
becaufe  they  have  others  to  fubflitute  in  their  room, 
that  they  can  better  manage  :  Nor  can  one  well  for- 
bear thinking,     if  "  other  editions,  "    from  Mill 
other  manufcripts,  fhould  come  forth,  more  defen- 
fible  than    thefe  they  now  have,    they    would  as 
readily  quit  "  thefe,  "  and  cry  up  "  them.  ". 

But  however  uncorrupt  the  ce  fhorter  Ignatian 
epiftles  u  are  faid  to  be,  there  are   iome,  and   of 

M  the 


98 


Appendix. 


the  fir  ft  rank  too  for  learning,  who  have  openly 
declared  their  opinion  of  them  as  fpurious  ;  and  a 
dill  greater  number  look  upon  them  as  interpolated, 
and  to  a  degree  that  renders  them  unfit  to  be  re- 
paired to,  in  order  to  know  the  mind  of  the  true 
Ignatius. 

The  ftrange  filence  of  primitive  antiquity  con- 
cerning epiftles  under  the  name  of  Ignatius  is  given, 
by  the  learned  Daille,  as  a  good  reafon  to  fufpect, 
that  he  never  wrote  any.  There  is  no  controverfy 
about  the  fact  itfelf,  namely,  that  none  of  the  wri- 
ters, whofe  works  are  ftill  remaining,  mention  e- 
piftles  wrote  by  Ignatius,  either  a  lefs  or  greater 
number,  till  we  come  into  the  fourth  century,  three 
only  excepted.  And  'tis  really  a  difputable  point, 
to  fay  the  leaft,  whether  any  of  thefe  three,  all  cir- 
cumftances  confidered,  are  to  be  looked  upon,  as 
proper  vouchers  in  the  cafe.  *     But  fhould  they  be 

allowed 

*  Polycarp,  Irenssus,  and  Origen,  are  the  tlnee  fathers, 
who  are  faid  to  mention  epiftles  wrote  by  Ignatius.  The 
Sentence  in  Polycarp,  which  takes  notice  of  thtfe  epiftles,  is 
that  which  concludes  his  own  epiftle.  "Tis  an  independant 
paragraph,  and  may  be  confidered,  either  as  an  original  part 
of  the  epiftle,  or  an  after-addition,  without  the  leaft  damage 
to  its  connection  or  ienfe.  In  this  view  of  it,  Daille  and 
L'arroque  look  upon  it  as  an  interpolation  ;  and  for  this  rea- 
fon, becaufe  it  fpeaks  of  Ignatius  as  yet  alive,  and  not  come 
to  his  laft  futferings  ;  while,  in  the  ninth  feclion,  he  is  di- 
rectly mentioned  as  dead,  and  gone  to  the  Lord  ;  which,  as 
they  argue,  is  an  inconfiftency,  it  would  be  a  difhonor  to 
charge  upon  Polycarp.  So  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  neither 
bifhop  Pearfon,  nor  arch- bifhop  Wake  have  faid  that  which 
is  fufficient  to  take  off  the  force  of  this  arguing.  As  for  Ire- 
P2cus,  the  manner  of  his  introducing  what  he  gives  us  from 
Ignatius  is  this,  "  quemadmoduni  quidam  de  noftris  dixit,  " 
as  one  from  among  us  faid  ;  which  is  as  properly  applicable 

to 


Appendix. 


99 


allowed  to  be  fo,  'tis  notwithftanding  an  unaccount^ 
able  thing,  that,  for  the  full  fpace  of  two  hundred 
years,  no  more  notice  fhould  be  taken  of  the  wri- 
tings of  this  primitive  father,  if-he  left  any.  For 
let  it  be  confidered, 

M  2  Ignatius 

to  a  verbal,  as  written  faying  :  For  which  reafon  I 
can't  but  think,  notwithftanding  all  that  has  been  offered  in 
favor  of  this  teftimony,  that  Mr.  Lardner  fpcaks  the  exact 
truth,  when  he  fays,  "  'Tis  difputable,  whether  he  cites  a 
paiTage  of  a  writing,  or  only  mentions  fome  words  or  ex- 
pressions of  Ignatius,  which  might  be  fpoken  by  him  upon 
the  near  view  of  his  martyrdom.  "  The  teftimonies  from 
Origen  (who,  by  the  way,  was  a  writer  in  jthe  third  century) 
are  two.  The  fvi\  is  taken  from  M  the  prologue  to  the  com- 
mentaries on  Canticles,  "  that  goes  under  his  name.  If  he 
was  the  real  author,  (which  is  tho't  que(Honable)  we  have  it 
only  in  the  verfion  of  RurBn,  who  is  reprefentcd  as  taking  a 
fhameful  liberty  in  all  his  tranflations  of  Origen, to  alter,  add 
or  diminifh  ;  infomuch  that  there  is  no  knowing  what  is  his, 
and  what  is  Onsen's.  'Tis,!  conclude,  for  this  reafon,  that 
neither  arch  bimop  Ufher  nor  Dr.  Hammond  do  make  ufe  of 
this  Origenical  testimony  in  the  evidence  they  exhibit  in  favor 
of  the  <4  Ignauan  epiftles.  "  The  other  testimony  is  cited 
from  "  his  homily  on  Luke."  This  alfo  is  fufpe&ed  to  be 
tie  vv>rk  of  fome  latin  author  ;  but  if  Origen  really  wrote  it, 
'ti>  ex  mt  only  in  latin  :  And  if  it  was  tranflated  by  Jerom, 
a  pretended,  there  is  no  knowing  what  is  truly  Origen's. 
DuPia  fays,  the  vertions  of  Jerom  are  not  more  exact  tluu 
RurH  )'s.  And  RufHn  complains  of  the  liberty  Jerom  took  in 
h  tranflatioQS,  as  Jerom  complains,  in  like  manner,  of  him. 
And  certainly  no  great  credit  ought  to  be  givento  translation* 
which  were  done  with  unbounded  licence.  I  may  pertinently 
add  here,  'tis  a  fhrewd  circumllance,  giving  realon  to  fufpecl 
thdt  Oigen  never  mentioned  the  "  Ignatian  epilUes  "  in  his 
writings,  that  he  is  lilentiy  pafled  over  by  Eufebius.  For  no 
one  was  a  greater  admirer  of  Origen,  nor  was  any  one  more 
particularly  verfed  in  his  writings.  And  as  he  exprefsly  re- 
fers to  the  above  paflages  in  Polycarp  and  Jrenseus,  'tis 
ftrnnge  he  fliould  take  no  notice  of  thofe  in  Origen,  if  the* 
had,  in  his  day,  been  contained  in  his  writings, 


ico  Appendix. 

Ignatius  was  a  perfon  that  lived  in  the  firfl:  age 
ofchriftianity  •,  was  perfonally  known  to,  and  ac- 
quainted with,  at  leaft,  fome  of  the  apoftles,  and 
many  of  thofe  who  had  been  converfant  with  them  5 
and  he  was  ( as  is  generally  fuppofed  )  fixed,  by  the 
apoftle  Peter,  or  Paul,  or  both,  in  the  paftoral 
office  at  Antigen,  a  noted  city  in  itfelf,  and  the 
more  fa  on  account  of  its  being  the  place,  where 
believers  were  firft  diftinguifhed  by  the  name  of 
chriftians.  Thefe  are  confiderations  that  open  to 
us  fo  much  of  the  character  of  this  ancient  father, 
as  to  leave  it  pad  doubt,  that  he  was  not  fo  obfeure 
a  perfon  as  to  be  unknown  in  thofe  days.  Befides, 
he  was  a  glorious  martyr  for  the  caufe  of  Chrift  ; 
and,  if  he  really  wrote  thefe  epiftjes,  the  circum- 
flances  of  his  martyrdom  were  more  fignally  illuf- 
trious,  than  ever  attended  any  other  martyrdom 
before,  or  fince,  that  we  have  any  record  of.  For 
he  was  condemned  at  Antioch  to  die  at  Rome  ; 
and,  in  order  to  the  execution  of  this  fentence,  was 
conveyed  by  a  band  of  foldiers,  as  a  prifoner  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  through  all  the  gofpelifed  places,  that 
Jay  between  thefe  two  greatly  diftant  cities.  Such 
circumftances  could  not  well  fail  of  fpreading  his 
fame,  and  occafioning  his  being  univerfally  known, 
and  talk'd  of,  among  chriftians,  A  primitive  fa- 
ther, and  hrft-paftor  of  one  of  the  mod  celebrated 
chriftian  churches,  to  be  carried,  as  it  were,  thro* 
the  world,  in  bonds  for  the  namb  of  Chrift  ;  —  it 
could  not  but  be  taken  notice  of,  by  all  the  chur- 
ches, as  he  pafled  along  :  Nor  is  it  conceivable, 
but  that  his  name  upon  this  account,  fhould  be  had 
in  remembrance.  If  he  had  been  an  obfeure  perfon 
before,  thd'c  obfervablcs  would  have  "  fet  him  on 
a  hill,  '•  and  put  him  under  an  advantage,  beyond 

any 


Appendix.  joi 

any  of  the  fathers  of  the  fame  age,  of  being  com- 
memorated in  after-writings.  Such  are  the  circum- 
ftances  under  which  we  are  to  conceive  of  the  fup- 
pofed  author  of  thefe  epiftles. 

And  extraordinary  ones  attend  the  epiftles  them- 
felves.  For  they  were  wrote,  if  at  all  wrote  by 
Ignatius,  in  the  capacity  of  a  "  prifoner  of  death/* 
and  while  actually  on  his  journey  to  be  "devoured 
by  wild  beafts  "  :  Nor  were  they  wrote  to  a  parti- 
cular friend,  upon  fume  private  concern  ;  nor  yet 
to  here  and  there  an  obfcure  church,  but  to  as  noted 
o/ies  as  had  then  been  formed  -,  and  this,  if  we  may 
credit  the  epifcoparians,  upon  matters  of  the  greateft 
importance  :  Which  are  considerations  that  won'c 
fufTer  us  to  think,  that  "  thefe  epiftles  y  were  ei- 
ther unknown,  to  the  world,  or  efteemed  worthy  of 
no  notice.  Six  epiftles  wrote  and  fent  to  as  many 
famous  churches,  by  the  head-paftor  of  Antioch, 
upon  the  moft  momentous  affairs,  and  at  fo  folemn 
a  time  as  that  of  his  being  about  to  die  for  the  fake 
of  Chrift,  could  not  but  have  occafioned  great  talk 
in  the  chriftian  world  ;  nor  is  there  room  to  doubt, 
that  they  would  have  had  a  very  diftinguifhing  value 
put  upon  them  :  Nay,  they  muft  have  been  efteem- 
ed the  moft  celebrated  monuments  of  all  uninfpired 
antiquity,  and  as  fuch  have  been  univerfally  known 
and  regarded,  efpecially  by  the  learned  writers  in 
thofe  times.  And  'tis  really  a  furprifing  thing,  that 
fo  little  refpect  fhould  be  paid  to  them  for  the  full 
fpace  of  200  years,  after  their  compofure  *,  and 
what  makes  the  matter  ftill  more  ftrange  is,  that 
the  writings  of  others  of  the  fame  age  are  particu- 
larly, named,  or  quoted.  And  why  fhould  the 
writings  of  Ignatius,  the  moft  famous  of  them  all, 

be 


102  Appendix. 

be  treated  with  fuch  unbecoming  neglect  ? — There 
is  certainly  fome  reafon,from  thefe  hints,  to  fufpecl, 
whether  Ignatius  was  the  real  author  ofthefe  epiftles. 

*Tis  urged,  if  he  did  not  pen  them,  they  were 
forged  before  the  days  of  Eufebius,  that  is,  between 
the  beginning  of  the  fecond,  and  the  coming  in  of 
the  fourth  century  -,  which  is  reprefented  as  a  thing 
altogether  incredible.  'Tis  readily  acknowledged, 
this  religious  knavery  was  praclifed,  if  at  ali,  within 
the  time  fpecified.  And  I  freely  own  for  myfelf 
ftill  further,  that  I  really  tho't  it  an  incredible  thing, 
it  mould  be  pracYifed  within  this  period,  till,  by 
better  acquaintance  with  antiquity,  I  was  fully  con- 
vinced I  had  been  under  a  great  miftake.  Perhaps, 
the  knavifh  forgeries,  within  this  term,  were  as 
numerous  as  they  have  ever  been  fince,  in  the  fame 
fpace  of  time.  Scarce  one  of  the  apoftles,  or  fir  ft 
mod  eminent  fathers,  have  efcaped  being  perfona- 
ted  by  fome  wretched  impoftor,  in  fome  piece  or 
other,  they  have  palmed  on  the  world  under  their 
name.  Nay,  our  blefled  Lord  himfelf  has  been 
thus  bafely  ufed.  And  there  is  no  one  tolerably 
verfed  in  the  ancient  writings,  but  knows  this  to  be 
true.  Hegefippus,  (  contemporary  with  Juftin 
Martyr,  who  fiourimed  about  the  year  150  )  dif- 
courfing  of  "  apocryphal  books,  "  fays,  at  lead, 
of  fome  of  them,  that  they  *  "  were  made  by  the 
heretics  of  his  time.  "  Irenaeus  obferves,  that  f- 
*'  the  heretics  in  his  day  had  an  innumerable  multi- 
tude of  fpuribtts  and  apocryphal  books,  which  they 
had  forged  to  delude  the  more  weak  and  ignorant 
fort   of  perfons.  M     Origen,  Jerom,  Epiphanius, 

Ambrofe? 

#  Eufeb.  lib.   IV.   cap.  xxii. 

f  Ad?;rf.  Hseref.  lib.  I.  cap.  xvii. 


Appendix.  1O3 

Ambrofe,  and  others,  tell  us  of  great  numbers  of 
thefe  books  made  ufe  of  by  the  heretics  in  their 
times.  Of  thefe  books,  fome  are  quite  loft,  not 
fo  much  as  the  names,  or  the  lead  part  of  them, 
remaining.  Of  others,  there  are  fome  few  frag- 
ments in  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  without  men- 
tioning the  books  from  whence  they  were  taken. 
Of  others,  there  are  undoubted  fragments,  with  the 
names  of  the  books  out  of  which  they  are  cited. 
Others  are  (till  extant,  at  leaft,  in  part.  The  rea- 
der may  lee  a  furprifingly  large  catalogue  of  thefe 
forged  books,  in  Du  Pin's  "  ecclefiaftical  hiftory-,  '* 
and  a  much  larger  one  (till  in  Mr. Jones's  "method 
of  fettling  the  canon  of  the  new-teftament "  :  From 
both  which  authors,  he  may  meet  with  what  will 
abundantly  fatisfy  him,  that  they  are  indeed  forge- 
ries, and  were  impofed  on  the  world  long  before 
the  days  of  Eufebius. 

And  not  only  were  books  forged  under  the  name 
of  infpired  perfons,  but  of  fome  of  the  moit  famous 
primitive  fathers.  Such  are  the  "  Recognitions  " 
fathered  oh  Clement  of  Rome ;  the  "  Clementines, %t 
as  aifo  the  "  Epitome  of  the  Clementine  acts  of 
Peter  "  ;  not  to  fay  any  thing  of  the  pretended 
"  apoftolical  conftitutions  and  canons,"  faid  to  be 
penned  by  Clement.  Such  are  Polycarp's  "  let- 
ter toDionyfius  the  Areopagite,"  and  his "  difcourfc 
on  St.  John's  death".  Thefe  are  all  of  them  evi- 
dently fpurious  pieces,  and  mod  of  them  univerfally 
owned  to  be  fo.  And  yet,  they  were  forged  before 
the  fourth  century.  So  that,  be  our  opinion  of  the 
times  before  Eufebius  as  it  will,  lome  there  were, 
even  in  thofe  times,  who  were  both  impudent  and 
knavifn  enough  to  be  guilty  of  Rich  a  fraud,  as  that 

we 


104.  Appendix. 

we  fuppofe  might  have  been  pracYifed,  under  tha 
name  of  Ignatius :  And  the  fuppofition  of  his  being 
thus  fraudulently  dealt  by  is  fo  far  from  being  an  in- 
credible thing,  that  it  only  adds  one  to  the  many 
religious  frauds,  which  were  committed  in  thofe 
days,  and  under  the  names  of  much  better  men 
than  he  can  be  pretended  to  be. 1 

After  all,  'tis  poflible,  I  own,  Ignatius  might 
fee  the  writer  of  thefe  epiftles  :  Nor  will  I  pretend 
to  determine,  that  he  was  not :  Tho*  I  am  inclined 
to  think,  moft  unprejudiced  perfons,  from  what 
has  been  offered,  will  be  difpofed  to  queftion,  whe- 
ther they  are  fo  certainly  his,as  to  leave  no  reafonable 
room  for,  at  lead,  fome  doubt  in  the  cafe. 

But  fhould  it  be  conceded,  that  thefe  epiftles 
were  certainly  wrote  by  Ignatius,  we  fhall,  notwith- 
standing, hope  to  be  excufed,  if  we  lay  no  great 
Weight  upon  what  is  cited  from  them  ;  and  for  this 
very  good  reafon,  becaufe  we  judge  they  are  fo 
interlarded  with  corrupt  mixtures,  as  not  fairly  to 
exhibit  the  real  fentiments  of  the  primitive  father, 
whofe  name  they  bear.  * 

,    What 

*  It  fliould  be  rernembred  here  'tis  not  only  the  truth  of 
fact,  that  Ignatius  has  been  bafely  and  fraudulently  dealt 
with,  no  lefs  than  eight  of  the  fifteen  epiftles  that  bear  his 
name  being  forgeries,  and  owned  to  be  fo  ;  but 'tis  fa <fl 
likewife,  and  acknowledged  as  fuch,  that  the  other  feven, 
in  all  the  editions  of  them,  before  Ufher  and  Voflius,  have 
been  so  corrupted  by  fome  knavifli  interpolator,  as  that 
they  ought  not  to  be  received  as  his  genuine  works.  We 
don't  argue  from  hence,  that  the  "  later  editions"  mufi 
be  corrupted  alfo  ;  but  thus  much  is  obvioufly  and  certainly 
deducible  herefrom,  that  they  may  be  fo  ;  that  the  fuppofi. 
tion  is  quite  eafy  and  natural,  as  falling  in  with  what  has  al- 
ready been  practifed  upon  thefe  epiftles. 


Appendix. 


105 


What  we  have  to  offer  in  fupport  of  this  judge- 
ment,, takes  in  fo  many  particulars,  that  it  would 
require  a  vaft  deal  more  room  than  can  at  prefenc 
be  fpared  to  confider  them.  I  fhall  therefore 
wholly  pals  them  over,  and  confine  myfelf  to  one 
thing  only,  viz.  what  is  here  faid  concerning  the 
officers  of  the  churches  he  writes  to.  And  I  the 
rather  pitch  upon  this,  becaufe  the  difcourfe  upon 
this  head  fo  runs  through  all  the  epiftles,  ( one  only 
excepted,  the  epiftle  to  the  "  Romans  "  *  )  bears 
fo  great  a  pare  in  them,  and  is  fo  mingled  with  al- 
moft  every  paragraph,  that  if  what  is  offered  upon 
this  point  is  not  worthy  of  the  true  Ignatius,  or  evi- 
dently exhibits  the  marks  of  an  age  posterior  to 
that  in  which  he  lived,  they  will  have  faftened  on 
them  the  charge  of  corruption,  unfitting  them  to 
be  depended  on  in  the  prefent,  or  indeed  any  other, 
debate. 

Three  things  I  have  here  to  fay,  which  I  efteem 
worthy  of  particular  notice,  and  fhall  diftinftly 
mention.  # 

I.  There  is  vaftly  more  faid  upon  the  head  of 
church- officers,  than  might  be  expected  from  the 
true  Ignatius.  The  feven  epiftles,  in  the  tranflation 
of  arch-bifhop  Wake,  take  up  about  50  pages  in 
oftavo  •,  and  the  extracts  I  have  made  from  them, 
as  they  relate  only  to  bifhops  and  prefbyters,  will 
fill  at  leaft  ten  5  tho'  they  are  made  from  but  fix 

N  of 

*  'Tis  obfervable,  this  epiitle  is  the  only  one  that  is 
perfectly  ufdef3  to  the  ep  fcopil  caufc.  For  it  differs  from 
all  the  re  t  in  this,  that  it  don't  once  diftinguifti  bifhops  from 
prefb/ters  ;  and,  if  I  don't  mifrcm^inber,  the  word  bifhop 
is  bat  once  afed  throughout  the  whole  epiftle. 


106  Appendix. 

of  the  feven  epiftles.  Now,  confidering  the  cir- 
cumftances  of  Ignatius,  when  he  wrote  thefe  epiftles, 
'tis  highly  improbable,  he  fhould  have  his  heart  fo 
much  fet  upon  the  honor  and  power  of  the  clergy, 
as,  in  all  of  them,  to  be  fo  very  lavifh  in  his  dif- 
courfe  upon  this  point.  He  was  now  a  "prifoner 
of  death,  "  and  on  "  his  journey  to  the  place  of 
execution"  ;  And  if  he  found  within  himfelf  a  dif- 
pofition  to  write  to  the  feveral  churches,  as  he 
went  along,  'tis  really  ftrange,  he  fhould  be  fo 
Jarge  in  his  encomiums,  exhortations,  directions, 
cautions,  and  informations,  all  tending  to  exalt  the 
clergy,  and  befpeak  for  them  the  higheft  reverence, 
and  mod  profound  fubjectior*.  Had  he  thus  wrote 
in  one  or  two  only  of  his  letters,  the  fpecial  cir- 
cumstances of  the  churches  to  whom  he  wrote 
might,  perhaps,  be  pleaded  in  his  excufe  :  But  it 
cannot  be  fuppofed,  fo  many  churches  fhould  be 
fo  ignorant  of  their  own  oonftitution,  or  of  the 
duty  they  owed  to  the  officers  fet  over  them  ;  or 
that  they  had  been  fo  faulty  in  their  behaviour  to- 
wards the  clergy,  as  to  make  it  proper  for  a  con- 
demned paftor,  juft  going  out  of  the  world,  fo 
to  write  to  them,  as  if  the  main  thing  fuitable 
to  be  faid  was,  "  that  they  had  very  worthy, 
and  God-becoming  bifhops  and  prefbyters,  whom 
they  ought  to  revere  and  honor  as  God  the 
Father,  and  his  fon  Jefus  Chrift.,,  There  is  plainly 
much  more  fpoken  upon  the  fubject  of  the  clergy, 
and  their  rights,  than  upon  any  other,  tho'  of  the 
mod  fundamental  importance  ;  which  looks  very 
ftrange.  It  would  certainly  do  fo  in  epiftles,  wrote 
at  prefent,under  like  circumftances  •,  and  the  rather, 
as  the  fame  things  are  not  only  mentioned  in  all  the 
epiftles,  but  in   molt  of  them  needlefsly  repeated, 

and 


Appendix. 


107 


and  in  fome  of  them  repeated  over  and  over  again 
Co  as  to  be  quite  fulfome.  Shou'd  a  bifhop,  at  this 
day;  while  in  the  near  view  of  death  for  religion's 
fake,  write  epiftles  to  the  churches  after  this  pattern, 
I  fcruple  not  to  give  it  as  my  opinion,  that  the  ge- 
neral thought  of  the  world  concerning  him,  in  this 
day  of  chriftian  liberty,  would  be,  that  over-heated 
zeal  for  clerical  honor  and  power  had  put  him  out 
of  the  poffeffion  of  himfelf.     This  leads 

II.     To    the   next   confideration,    namely,  the 
<c  lofty  defections"  that  are  given,  in  thefe  epiftles, 
of  the  officers    of  the  chriftian    church,  with  the 
"  exorbitant  claims  of  power  and  dominion  "  made 
on   their  behalf.     The  language  to   this  purpoie  is 
truly  extraordinary,  not  at  all  confonant  to  the  age 
of  the  true  Ignatius,  nor  indeed   worthy  of  fo  pri- 
mitive a  father  and  martyr.     What  other  thought 
can    we  entertain  of  thofe    numerous  expreflions, 
which  reprefent  bimops  as  "  prefiding  in  the  ptace 
cf  God  "   :  which   compare  them  to  "  God  the 
Father,  and  to  JefusChrift  the  fon  of  the  Father*'  : 
which  declare  it  our  duty  to  "  receive  them  as  the 
Lord,  to   reverence  them  as  Jefus  (Thrift, "  yea, 
"  to  follow  them  even  as  Chrift  does  the  Father  "  : 
which  caution  againft  "  refifting  the   bifhop,    left 
we  mould  difobey  God  M  :  which  command  us  "  fo 
to  obey  the  bifhop,  and   fubje<ft  ourfelves  to  him, 
as  to  do  nothing  without  him  M  :  which,  "  without 
the  bifhop  ",  deem  it  "  unlawful  either  to  baptiff  3 
or  celebrate  the  facrament,  or  indeed  do  any  thing, 
however  reafonable  it  may  appear  to  us  "  :  which 
exhort  to  be  "  fo  one  with  the  bifhop,  as  Chrift  is 
one  with  the  Father  •,  and  fo  to  do  nothing  without 
him,  as  Chrift  did  nothing  without  the  Father  M  * 

N  2  which 


108  Appendix/ 

which  make  fo  great  account  of  "  obedience  and 
fubjection  to  the  bifhop,"  that  they  who  "  do  any 
thing  without  him  "  are  efteemed  "  doing  the  devil 
a  fervice  "  ;  and  "  thole  that  remain  with  him  " 
are,  upon  this  account  only,  thought  worthy  of  the 
character  "  of  belonging  to  Chrift:  "  ;  and  are  re- 
prefented  "  as  walking  not  as  men,  but  according 
to  Chrift  "  ;  Yea,  in  fo  high  eftimation  is  obedience 
to  the  officers  of  the  church,  with  the  author  of 
thefe  epiftles,  that  he  even  M  pawns  his  foul  for 
thofe  who  obey  the  bifhop,  prefbyters  and  deacons," 
and  defires  "  his  portion  in  God  may  be  with  fuch." 

These,  and  like,  exprefTions,  fo  frequently  to 
be  met  with  in  thefe  epiftles,  can't  eafily  be  fuppo- 
fed  to  have  been  penned  by  the  true  Ignatius.  Jn 
their  literal  ftrict  fenfe,  they  are  unworthy  of  any 
pious  writer  $  much  more  of  the  celebrated  father, 
to  whom  they  are  afcribed  :  Nor  can  it  be  denied, 
that  they  aggrandife  bifhops  beyond  all  reafonable 
bounds,  and  plead  for  the  mod  blind,  implicit  and 
abfolute  obedience,  as  that  which  is  properly  due 
to  them.  And,  in  a  qualified  fenfe,  they  are  fome 
of  them  very  unguarded  ;  others  fcarce  capable  of 
being  at  all  jufbified  ♦,  and,  in  general,  all  of  them 
do  much  rather  favour  of  the  language  and  fpirit 
"  of  after  times,"  than  of  the  age  in  which  Ignatius 
is  known  to  have  lived. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  fact  more  notorioufly 
evident,  than  that  none  of  the  facred  writers,  nor 
primitive  fathers,  either  of  the  fame  age,  or  near 
the  fame  age,  in  which  Ignatius  fioiirifhcd,  do  hold 
the  lead  affinity  with  him,  in  his  ftrange  talk  (  if  it 
be  his  )  about  the  officers  cf  the  chriftian  church. 

If 


App   B  N  D  IX. 


109 


If  wc  look  into  the  "  Paftor  of  Hermas,  '"  the 
u  cpiftle  of  Polycarp,"  or  any  other  genuine  piece, 
near  the  time  in  which  thefe  epiftles  are  faid  to  be 
wrote,  we  (hall  find  in  them  all  the  difcoveries  of  a 
quite  different  fpirit.  Thefe  unitedly  concur  in  the 
like  plain  language  ;  fpeaking  of  the  officers  of  the 
church  in  a  manner  becoming  the  fimplicity  of  the 
gofpel,  and  the  purity  and  humility  of  thofe  early 
days  ;  Whereas,  when  we  turn  to  the  "  Ignatian 
epiftles,"  the  reverfe  is  clearly  vifible  through  theft*- 
all ;  little  being  here  to  be  feen  but  fuch  high  drains 
of  language,  as  are  evidently  adapted,  if  not  pur- 
pofely  contrived,  to  exalt  the  clergy,  and  fecure  to 
them  all  power,  reverence  and  fubjeclion.  And 
how  fliall  this  be  accounted  for  ?  Why  fhould  there 
be  fuch  a  fignal  difference  between  the  manner  of 
writing  in  thefe  epiftles,  and  all  the  other  extant 
books  of  the  fame  age  ? 


*DN 


To  this  it  is  faid,  that  the  ftile  of  authors  is  very 
different,  and  the  turn  of  expreflion,  in  every 
writer,  as  peculiar  to  him,  as  his  countenance  or 
gate  :  For  which  reafon,  its  thought  to  be  no  ways 
ftrange,  that  the  manner  of  Ignatius's  writing  is  not 
like  that  of  his  contemporaries. 

It  is  readily  acknowledged,  that  the  particular 
turn  of  language,  in  different  authors,  is  different, 
as  is  pleaded  ♦,  but  at  the  fame  time,  denied,  that 
this  at  all  removes  the  difficulty.  For  a  number  of 
authors,  writing  upon  the  fame  fubj eel:,  may  each 
of  them  write  in  his  own  peculiar  ftile,  and  yet  a- 
gree  in  exhibiting  the  like  account.  The  ftile  of 
Hermas  widely  differs  from  that  of  Clement,  as 
Clement's  does  from  that  of  Polycarp  ;  and  yet, 

they 


up  Appendix. 

they  all  lead  us  to  think  much  the  fame  thing  about 
the  clergy  ;  and  this*  very  evidently,  not  with - 
ftanding  they  feverally  exprefs  themfelves  in  a  turn 
peculiar  each  one  to  himfelf.  And  why  might  not 
Ignatius,  with  the  reft  of  his  contemporaries,  have 
wrote  in  his  own  ftile,  and  yet  have  concurred  with 
them  in  a  like  account  of  the  officers  of  the  church  ? 
'Tis  certain  he  might.  Audit  muft  be  afcribed, 
not  to  meer  difference  of  ftile,  but  to  fome  other 
caufe,  that  he  io  ftrangely  differs  from  them. 

It  is  therefore  further  pleaded,  Ignatius  was  a 
Syrjajc,  and  its  no  other  than  might  be  expected 
to  find  him  writing  in  a  "  (welling  turgid  ftile.  '* 
To  which  it  is  eafy  to  reply, 

His  being  a  Syrian  may  poffibly* account  for 
Hs  fometimes  barbarous  Greek,  as  well  as  uncouth 
compound  words  peculiar  tovhimfelf  •,  but  how  it 
fhould  account  for  his  fentiments  concerning  the 
clergy,  as  differing  from  thofe  of  his  contempora- 
ries, is  not  fo  eafy  to  fay.  For  not  only  is  the 
high  language  in  thefeepiftles,  but  the  thing  intend- 
ed by  it,  quite  different  from  that  which  is  contain- 
ed in  the  other  writings  about  the  fame  age.  Ig- 
natius is  alone,  not  in  ftile  only,  but  in  real  mean- 
ing. Unclothe  the  metaphors,  qualify  the  hyper- 
boles, bringdown  the  rhetorical  drains  ufed  in  thefe 
writings,  and  put  them  into  fimple  language,  and 
their  true  fpirit,  their  genuine  intendment,  will  car- 
ry the  honor  and  power  of  the  clergy  much  higher, 
than  it  is  carried  by  all  the  phrafes  of  all  the  con- 
temporary writers  united  together ;  Nor  can  a  per- 
fon,  who  reads  the  epiftles  of  Ignatius,  help  having 
excited  in  his  mind  a  far  more  exalted  idea  of  pref- 

byters 


Appendix  m 

byters  as  well  as  bifhops,  than  by  reading  all  the 
other  writers,  till  we  come  to  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries. 

The  plain  truth  is,  there  is  fo  little  refemblance 
between  thefe  epiftles,  upon  the  head  under  confr- 
deration,  and  the  other  writings  of  the  fame  age  ; 
and,  I  may  add,  fo  great  a  refemblance  between 
them,  and  the  writings  of  a  posterior  date,  that 
one  can  fcarce  help  thinking,  the  real  author  of 
them  was  alive  in  the  world,  long  after  the  death 
of  the  truly  primitive  Jgnatius. 

However  the  difpute  about  the  fuperiority  of 
bifhops  to  prefbyters  be  .determined,  nothing  is 
more  evident,  than  that  the  language  relative  to  the 
clergy,  befp6aking  the  reverence  and  fubmiflion 
due  to  them,  was  very  different  after*  the  fecond 
century,  from  what  it  was  before.  And  as  the 
language,  in  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles,"  is  quite  dif- 
ferent, upon  this  head,  from  the  language  of  the 
age  in  which  this  father  lived ;  fo  it -well  agrees  with 
that,  which  was  in  fad  ufed  afterwards. 

This  is  particularly  obvious,  upon  a  comparifbn 
between  the  books  that  go  under  the  name  of  the 
"  apoltolical  conftitutions,  and  canons,"  and  **  thefe 
epiftles."  Before  their  appearance  in  the  editions 
of  Ulher  and  Voflius,  the  agreement  between  them, 
not  in  fpirit  only,  but  in  words  and  phrafes,  was 
fo  obfervable,  that  fome  have  not  lcrupled  to  fay, 
that  they  had  both  one  author.  That  great  anti- 
quary, the  arch-bifhop  of  Armagh,  was  clearly  of 
the  opinion,  that  the  fame  hand  interpolated  the 
Ignatian  epiftles,  that  interpolated  the  apoftolical 

ccnflitutions"; 


H2  Appendix. 

conftitutions  ;  and  is  fomewhat  large  in  offering 
the  reafons  of  his  entertaining  fuch  a  thought.  And 
fince  the  publication  of  the  new,  and  (  as  is  tho't  ) 
very  much  purged  editions,  the  refemblance  is  ftill 
vifible  ;  fo  clearly  fo,  that  I  can't  fuppofe,  but 
prejudice  itfelf  will  own,  there  is  a  much  greater 
analogy  between  them,  in  their  high  defcriptions  of 
biffiops,  and  the  honor  and  obedience  due  to  thern, 
than  between  thefe  epiftles,  and  any  other  piece 
that  is  not  of  a  much  later  date. 

And  what  mould  be  the  reafon  of  this  ?  Why 
fhould  the  Ignatian  epiftles  be  thus  different  from 
all  the  contemporary  writings,  and  fo  much  like 
thofe  which  did  not  appear  till  many  years  after 
his  death  ?  Why  mould  they  be  wrote  with  a  fpirit, 
and  in  language,  that  are  well  fuited  to  the  claims 
made  by  the  clergy,  and  the  honor  and  obedience 
that  were  in  fact  yielded  to  them,  not  at  the  time 
when  they  were  wrote,  but  long  after  the  fup- 
poied  author  of  them  was  gone  out  of  the  world  ? 
This  furely  looks  iufpicious,  and  is  a  fhrewd  fign 
of  unfair  dealing  fome  how  or  other.— To  proceed, 

III.  The  mod  weighty  confederation  of  all  is, 
the  appropriation  of  the  names,  bifhop  and 
prefbyter,  fo  commonly  and  certainly  to  be  met 
with  in  thefe  epiftles.  The  learned  Daille  diftin- 
guifhes  this  from  all  his  other  arguments,  calling  it 
*'  argumentum  palmarium  "  ;  as  well  he  might, 
it  being  an  argument  that  is  founded  on  one  of  the 
bed  and  fureft  rules  in  criticifm,  evidencing  a  pre- 
tended genuine  writing  to  befpurious,  or  corrupted  *, 
namely,  it's  ufing  words  in  an  appropriated 
fenfe,  which   words  were  not  fo  ufed  at  the  time 

when 


Appendix,  f  i  3 

when  this  writing  is  known  to  have  been  penned, 
but  were  fo  ufed  in  after-ages.  The  grcateft 
critics  ever  recur  to  this  as  the  furcft  teft  :  Nor  is 
its  fufficiency,  as  fuch,  in  matters  of  this  nature, 
difputed  by  any.  In  applying  therefore  this  teft 
to  the  point  in  hand,  let  it  be  obferved  j 

The  words,  bifhop  arid  prefbyter,  are,  in  the 
"  Ignatian  epiftles  ",  appropriated  terms  ;  not 
ufed  in  a  loofe  and  promifcuous  manner,  but  in  a 
fenfe  particularly  ascertained  and  fixed.  Bifliops 
are  not  here  called  prefbyters,  nor  are  prefbyters 
called  bifhops ;  but  the  officers,  filled  bifhops,  are 
diftinguifhed  from  thofe  that  are  ftiled  prefbyters, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  thofe  that  are  (tiled  pref- 
byters are,  in  like  manner,  diftinguifhed  from  thofe 
that  are  (tiled  bifhops.  And  the  terms,  bifhop  and 
prefbyter,  are  the  appropriated  ones,  pointing 
out  thefe  different  church-officers.  And  this  appro- 
priation of  the  words  is  not  accidental,  but  runs 
thro'  all  the  epiftles,  and  all  the  editions  of  them, 
the  Ufherian  and  Voffian,  as  well  as  thofe  that  pre- 
ceded them.  And  'tis  fo  facred  and  inviolable, 
that,  in  no  cafe,  at  no  time,  upon  no  occafion,  is 
this  ufe  of  the  words  departed  from.  Not  an  irv- 
(tance  is  to  be  met  with,  where  the  word  bifhop  is 
confounded  with  the  word  prefbyter ;  or  the  word 
prefbyter,  with  the  word  bifhop  :  But  thefe  terms 
are  accurately  and  religiouQy  applied  to  different 
perfons,  in  a  fixed  and  appropriated  (cnk.  That  is 
the  manner  of  diction  in  thefe  epiftles,  "  obey  your 
bifhop,  and  the  prefbytery.  "  —  "I  haye  been 
judged  worthy  to  fee  you  by  Damas,  your  bifhop  •, 
and  your  prefbyters,  BafTjs  and  Apollonius.  "— 
"  The  bifhop  prefiding  in  the  place  of  God,  y.mr 

O  prefbyters 


ii£  Appendix. 

prefbyters  in  the  place  of  the  council  of  the  apcftles." 
—  "  Let  all  reverence  the  bifliop  as  the  Father, 
and  the  .prefbyters  as  the  Sanhedrim  of  God.  "  — 
*•  Attend  to  the  bifhop,  and  the  prefbytery.  "  — 
But  I  have  no  need  to  multiply  citations  here.  'Tis. 
the  very  thing  pleaded,  in  favor  of  epifcopacy, 
that  Ignatius  ever  diftinguifhes  bifhops  from  pref- 
byters.  This  he  has  been  faid  to  do  (  if  my  me- 
mory don't  fail  me)  thirty-fix  times  :  Which,  I  am 
fatisfied,  is  not  an  enlargement  ;  tho\  I  muft  con- 
iefs,  I  have  not  been  fo  curious  as  to  adjuft  the 
jprecife  number. 

What  agreement  now  is  there  between  the  fup- 
pofed  Ignatius,  and  his  contemporaries,  upon  this 
head  ?  Do  they  likewife  ufe  the  words,  biihop  and 
prcfbyter,  in  an  appropriated  fixed  fenfe  ?  The 
plain  anfweris,  they  do  not.  Far  from  fo  doing, 
they  differ  as  much  from  him  in  their  ufe  of  thefe 
terms,  as  they  do  from  any  of  the  writers  of  the 
third  or  fourth  centuries  :  Nor  is  there  an  author 
extant,  that  wrote  either  before  Ignatius,  or  at  the 
time  when  he  wrote,  or  even  afterwards  till  we  are 
got  into  the  third  century  and  onwards,  that  ufes 
thefe  words  as  he  does,  in  a  fenfe  fo  certainly,  fo 
commonly,  and  fo  invariably  fixed  and  determined. 

It  is  plain,  there  is  no  manner  of  affinity  be- 
tween the  apoftolic,and  Ignatian  ufe  of  thefe  words  ; 
tho'  Ignatius  was  peifonally  known  to,  at  lead, 
fome  of  the  apoflles.  With  him  they  are  always 
appropriated  terms  ;  but  with  them,  they  are 
promifcuouQy  ufed,  as  may  be  feen  in  the  forego- 
ing difcourfe.  It  evidently  appears  from  hence, 
that  fcilhop   and    prcfbyter  were    not  yet  fettled 

names 


Appendix.  #*~i5 

nimes,  fignifying  diftina  officers.    And  this,  as 
He  fay?,  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  an- 
cW>  fa  hers,  who  fpeak  of  the  ufe  of  thefe  words 
Is  primitive  age'     And  Dr.  Whkby,  an  epifco- 
pal  writer,  affirms°the  fame  thing ;  as  was  obferved 
in   the  difcourfe   to  which  this  is  annexed.    Nay, 
Bellarmine  himfelf,    a  Roman-cathohc-wnter re- 
penting the  fenfe  of  the  fathers  upon  this  point 
fay  ,  as  he  is  quoted  by  Daille,  «  In  the  apoftohc 
times,  the  names,  biffiop  and  prefcyter,  were  com- 
mon to  all  the  priefts,  both  to  the  greater whom 
we  now  callbimops;    and  to  the  left,  whom  we 
calprefbyters."     I  don't  bring  thefe  teftfansu* 
by  way  of  proof,  that  thefe  names  were  thus  uied 
"I  the  firft  age  •,    but  only  to  (hoW.thtf  to  to« 
of  the  matter  is  not  confined  to  thofe,  who  live  in 
thefe  latter  days,  and  maybe  fufpefted  of  prejud.ee 
aga  nft    he  order  of  bimops  •,   but  that  it  was  the 
opinion  of  the  ancient   fathers  themfelves,  even 
thofe  of  them  who  flouriftied  after  ep.fcopacy  took 
place,  and  were  hearty  friends  to  this  kind  of  go- 
vernment in  the  church. 

And  as  thefe  names  are  promifcuoufiy  applied 
in  the  apoftohc  writings  fo  are  they  in  toother 
writings  before  thofe  or  Ignatius.  In  He  mas  s 
«'  Paftor  "  the  word,  bilhops,  is  explained  to  Ug- 
aify  *  "  thofe  that  prefide  in  the  church  •,  and 
thofe  that  prefide  in  the  church  are  &?%&£ 
ters  that  prefide  in  the  church".  And  in  Clement  s 
«  epiftfe  to  the  Corinthians,"  the  fame  officers  that 
are  called  "  prefcyters,"  are  exprdsly  fpoken  ot 
as  "  caft  out  of  their  epifcopacy."  U 

O  2  AN0 


|  ibid.  pag.   173-  caP«  &*' 


Si  mil.  ix. 


u6       m    Appendix. 

And  if  we  turn   to  Polycarp,  the  fuppofed  col- 
lector of  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles,  M  and    the  next 
and  neareft  writer  to  him,  he  fays    nothing  from 
whence  it  can  be  gathered,  that  bifhop  and  prefby* 
ter  were,  in  his  day,  appropriated  terms,  and  ap- 
plied, as  fuch,  to  diftinci  officers   in   the  church. 
Pj^fbyters  and  deacons  are   the  only  officers  he 
fpeaks  of  *,  and  he  undoubtedly  means  by  them  the 
fame  church-officers   that   are   called  by  Clement, 
and  by  the  apoftle  Paul,  in  his  epiftle  to  this  fame 
church,  bifhops  and  deacons.     And  'tis  remarkable, 
Polycarp  no  where  ufes  the  word  bifhop,  nor  does 
he  fay  a  word  of  the  bifhop  of  Philippi,  much  lefs 
of  his  diftin&ion  from  the  prefbyters  of  this  church : 
Wherein  he  widely  differs  from  Ignatius  •,  which  is 
really  unaccountable,  confidering  how  lately  Igna- 
tius, under  very  extraordinary  circumftances,  had 
wrote  his  epiftles,  and  how  particularly  acquainted 
Polycarp  (  as  is  pretended  )  was  with  them  *,  efpe- 
cially  confidering   (till  further,    that  Ignatius  had 
wrote  one  epiftle  to  Polycarp  himfelf,  and  another 
to  his  church  at  Smyrna,in  one  of  which  he  "  pawns 
his  foul  for  them  that  were  obedient  to  the  bifhop 
and  the  other  clergy  "  ;  and,  in  the  other,  make's 
the  bifhop   fo    necefTary,  "  that  no  adminiftration 
could  be  valid  without  him, but  whatever  he  fhouk). 
approve  would  be  pleafing  to  God.  " 

No  more  is  to  be  feen  of  an  appropriated  ufe  of 
the  terms  bifhop  and  prefbyter  in  Juftin  Martyr, 
than  in  Polycarp.  Irenaeus  frequently  ufes  thefe 
trerms,  but  in  the  loofe  and  promifcuous  fenfe  ;  as 
is  well  known  to  all  who  have  read  him  :  Nor  dp 
the  terms  appear  to  be  ar  p  opriated  ones,  till  to- 
wards the  dole  of  th*  feaji.l  century  ;  and  even 

then 


Appendix.  117 

then  the  appropriation  ( as  was  obferved  in  the  fore- 
going difcourfe)  was  not  fteadily  fixed.  We  muft 
get  into  the  third  century,  and  the  middle  of  it  too, 
before  we  (hall  find  it,  after  the  manner  of  Ignatius, 
facred  and  inviolable. 

Upon  which  the  enquiry  is   obvious  and  juft, 
how  comes  it  to  pafs,  that  Ignatius  mould  con- 
stantly ufe  the  terms,  bifhop  and  prefbyter,  not 
in  the  fenfe,  in  which  they  were  ufed,  in  the  age  in 
which  he  wrote,  but  in  the  fenfe  in  which  they  were 
ufed  in  other  aces,  long  after  his  death  ? 
This  ought   certainly   to  excite  our  jealoufy,  and 
put  us  upon  caution  left  we  mould  take  fomeknavifh 
lmpoftor   for  the  worthy  and  primitive  Ignatius. 
Words,  we   know,    often  vary  in  their  meaning ; 
and  fometimes  particular  words  are  as  fure  marks 
of  fuch  a  particular  age,  as  particular  garbs  or  fa- 
ihipns.     And  this  is  the  cafe  here.     Before  the  daya 
of  Ignatius,  about  the  time  of  his  nourifhing  and 
dying,  and   for  fome  confiderable  time  afterwards, 
the  words,  bifhop  and  prefbyter,  were  unappro- 
priated terms,  and  promifcuoufly  applied  to  the 
fame  perfons :  Whereas,  towards  the  goino-  out  of 
the  age  in  which  he  lived,  or  rather  the  coming  in 
of  the  next,  they  loft  their  promifcuous  ufe,  and 
became  appropriated    terms,  and  were  as  fuch 
applied  to  different  perfons,  who  were  accordingly 
now  diftinguifhed  from  each  other  by  being  fpoken 
of  under  thefe  names.     And  as  thefe  names,  in  the 
epifties  afenbed  to  Ignatius,  in  their  pureft  editions 
are  ever  ufed   in  the  appropriated  fenfe,  diftin- 
guiOiing  bifhops  from  prefbyters,  we  are  prefented 
with  a  mod  evident  mark  of  time  posterior    to 
that,  m  which  the  true  Ignatius  is  known  to  have 
Jived. 

Enough 


1 1 8         Appendix. 

Enough,  Itruft,  has  now  been  faid  to  anfwer 
the  defignl  had  in  view,  which  was  to  juftify  thofe 
who  pay  no  great  regard  to  what  is  bro't  from  the 
•*  Ignatian  epiftles,"  in  fupport  of  epifcopacy. 
And  I  would  flatter  myfelf,  that  even  our  opponents, 
while  they  judge  impartially,  will  not  think,  we 
herein  acl:  as  tho*  we  had  nothing  to  fay  in  vindica- 
tion of  ourfelves.  Bigotry  itfelf  muft  confefs  there 
h  good  reafon,  at  lead  the  plaufible  appearance 
of  it,  to  fuppofe,  either  that  Ignatius  did  not  write 
the  epiftles  that  are  afcribed  to  him  ;  or,  if  he  did 
write  them,  that  they  are  handed  down  to  us  so 
mingled  with  corruption,  as  not  to  defervc 
a  reception  as  his  genuine  works. 


THE  reader  is  defired  to  correS,  with  his  pen,  the  fol- 
lowing errata,and  fach  other  as  he  may  obferve,  which 
have  efcaped  the  author's  notice. 

Page.  io,linc2,  read  there.  P,i5,  I.  3, from  the  bottom 
r.  defcribing.  P.  25,  1.  18,  read  conftituted.  P.  37.  l.ic, 
r.  confeffus.  P.  39,  1.  9,  from  the  bottom,  r.  confefTus. 
P.  72.  J.  5,  of  the  note  at  the  bottom,  r.  L'arroquc. 
P.  76,  1.  laft,  r.  confeflionura.  P.  77.  1.  3.  from  the  bot- 
tom r.  univerfali.  P.  79,  1.  laftbutone,  r.  or.  P.  Sa.J, 
4,  del.  of. 


vS 


Ml 


•  ■ 

E&§P 


■■■■"-- 

IBM'S™ 


■•">-• 


Ii3i 

1    ■         * 

sin 

